I would be curious about which candidates support differentiated instruction. https://wilmette39.ss9.sharpschool.com/for_students/differentiated_instruction This teaching strategy acknowledges that students have different learning speeds and learning styles, and strives to meet each child where they are, so students can keep moving forward with a thorough focus on comprehension at each step. It’s a big strength of Wilmette’s approach, and used to also be a strength of D65.
These are good questions--although I would like to know the candidates' position on having a public superintendent search where finalists are brought in for public events prior to an offer being made.
The last two superintendents were hired in secret and a lot of the mistrust people have with the board is wondering why they are hiring people with such limited experience, dodgy financial backgrounds, and ineligible to work for other districts.
The board needs to go back to a public process for superintendent searches. This is key for transparency.
Multiple candidates are talking about "restoring trust" or running on "transparency." If they can't make a simple pledge to have public superintendent searches, then those are just platitudes.
I am assuming Tom already sent the questions out, but if you are a candidate reading this there is no reason you can't weave a pledge for open superintendent searches into the first question.
Also, for Tom--I am struck by the lack of a question regarding transparency! Isn't that, like, the whole purpose of "FOIA"gras?!?!?!?!
Hah! I actually assumed (maybe improperly) that 12/12 candidates in this case support a public superintendent search, so I didn't even bother to ask. It might be too late to weasel the question in, but let me see what I can come up with - also this might be in one of the other dozen questionnaires they have to fill out too. I will look around
I've looked at all of the candidate websites and haven't seen this specifically addressed.
Andrew Wymer did not mention it at all once he took the floor after the "land acknowledgement" at his campaign kickoff. (At least according to the video).
This makes me think of another question: "Do you believe that land acknowledgements are a performative and purposeless stunt?" Anyone who says no can't have my vote.
This is a fair question and a good call-out, Theo. I am happy to incorporate this into my responses and/or website. I almost had it as a bullet on my Vision page but was trying to strike a balance between detailed and digestible given the wide range of likely voters we need to connect with. Some are really high-information on the issues of D65 and want to know specifics, while others might want it at a higher level.
I'm always happy to take a deeper dive into areas of specific relevance but I generally agree that we shouldn't assume all 12 candidates are completely aligned without confirmation -- this raises the bar of accountability down the line if you have receipts.
On the Superintendent search, given the opportunity, I would support it being an open search with engagement opportunities that bring the community along through the process. I've heard the narrative that it's harder to get as many candidates in an open search, but I think that's something we need to assess publicly before considering alternatives.
An open search will only take us so far, too. Much depends on the board's willingness to implement a contract with well-written, specific goals aligned with our vision and strategic plan. That better empowers the Board to serve the community through their core function of oversight, when there's a clear (and ambitious) bar for success.
In terms of the search, the board used the logic that a closed search will get us better candidates back in 2019, and look where that got us!
Horton was running around the country in 2019 participating in open searches. So, even if you were a Horton fan, an open search wouldn't dissuade such a great candidate.
Of course when Horton was a finalist Board president Suni Kartha claimed that he requested "confidentiality to remain in the search." This is really hard to believe and--I think--damaged the board's credibility. Kartha expected us to believe that Horton was fine with people knowing he was applying in Rochester, Grand Rapids, and Indianapolis, but wanted to keep the Evanston interview a secret?!?! That's absurd.
I think having a closed process--especially one accompanied by Kartha's seeming mendacity--sent the message to Horton that transparency and responsiveness to the community were not core values of the board. It emboldened him to engage in questionable behavior--reckless spending, sending contracts to his business partners, etc....
Maybe I'm naive, but I think if in 2019 Horton had been publicly named as a group of finalists there would have been immediate public pressure to not hire him. His slim resume and dodgy financial background should have been enough to disqualify him. Under a public process there would have been no way that he could have survived.
Our second closed search brought us someone who CPS went to the extraordinary lengths of putting on a "do not hire" list. Was this the best candidate who applied? We have no idea because of the closed search.
Many districts around the state and nation conduct public searches. You can search "superintendent search finalists" on google news and see scores of people applying for superintendent positions. Just take a look at Ann Arbor's search last year. They had six finalists and pretty much every candidate had more experience than Turner. We have no idea what the pool liked like here.
Theo - basically all the candidates are talking up ‘transparency’ as it is something voters of all stripes can approve of as a general concept. Tom has some great questions to root out who these candidates really are as candidates but I agree your question about a public supt. search would be good to add as well, to hold the candidates feet to the fire on the ‘transparency’ that is so easy to talk up as a general concept without having actual specific scenarios applied.
Tied to the question of technology is the question of support for a highly regimented ‘canned curriculum’ that levels the field between experienced and inexperienced teacher and provides a ‘uniform experience’ (a board member’s words) of milquetoast education for all classes , vs what most of us adults had, which was some memorable, excellent teachers (Mr Chips, etc), some good teachers and some just ok teachers. D65 board has mentioned wanting to have a uniform experience, but once again this will be at a lower common denominator.
D65 teacher/substack blogger Simone Larson (who Tom steered me to) writes about how this diminishes the art of teaching for those teachers who are accomplished in that art. For what D65 is paying, I would hope we could rely on teachers to teach without tying them to a dictated curriculum (or we can save D65 finances by just hiring robots instead). Maybe this is needed in the ‘turnaround’ CPS schools that Horton came from, but Evanston can and should do better!
Ironically, in ‘Progressive’ communities such as Evanston, the public schools have been veering away from what is considered progressive in the field of education (progressive is moving away from screens and back toward play-based and experiential learning, and now this has some very solid scientific backing, such as in the writings of Jonathan Haidt, leveraging mammal biology and human anthropology, etc. to make the case).
Personally, I don’t understand the obsession about “transparency.” Sure, make information accessible if someone - citizens, journalist - want it. But I want to elect someone whose judgement I trust and then go about my life. That’s the benefit of representative (rather than direct) democracy. What am I missing?
For me, the main transparency violation of the current board is the way they have conducted the superintendent searches. The Horton hire totally broke decades of precedent. The public had no idea who the finalists were and Horton's name was not released until after the contract was signed.
It was appalling that they followed the same process with Turner.
Probably the most important duty of the board is to hire a Superintendent. It is impossible for the public to evaluate the board's decision making when they are doing this in total secrecy.
I would say, in terms of judgment, when I googled Horton's name after he was hired and saw that he owed tens of thousands of dollars to the City of Chicago, saw his public statements made during other superintendent interviews, and his slim resume, and the fact that the Board had sent out an email saying the finalists had "requested anonymity to remain in the search" all raised red flags.
My initial reaction was "What is the board thinking? This is not going to end well."
I honestly think they would have had to think twice to present Horton as a viable candidate if there had been an open search.
I have to push back on your assertion that every candidate has said “yes, we believe in both financial sustainability and equity.” Agree with the portion about financial sustainability, but many of the candidates have made little to no mention about equity in their platforms, forums, and websites. Let's not hand out free passes where they haven't been earned.
I think a good question would be to ask what a candidate’s ‘Equity’ vision is, and how they would like to see it be enacted in D65 policies and programs; i.e. would this be eliminating advanced math to level the field or would it be programs to encourage and provide academic support to those low income students who show potential for advanced coursework, etc.
Thank you Tom for this very helpful update on the School Board candidates. My children are adults but I will research this carefully. Do you receive the emails from Governor Pritzker's office? I find the emails informative. Yesterday he announced an appointment that is important to all of us since our rights are under serious attack from the current administration in DC. You can look this up if you have time to read all the details. They do not send the emails out with a "view inbrowser option."
"Amy Meek to Serve as Deputy Director of the Illinois Department of Human Rights
After 8 years of service, Alex Bautista concludes his tenure at IDHR
CHICAGO – Today, the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) announced Amy Meek will serve as the agency’s next Deputy Director. Meek is an experienced civil rights attorney and brings an exceptional record of leadership in government and the nonprofit sector. The announcement comes alongside Alex Bautista’s transition from IDHR after nearly 8 years of service to work on special projects with the Governor’s Office of New Americans."
Hi, Tom - Great questions! I would love to hear candidates’ perspectives on the following: What ideas do you have to address the current issue of low staff morale? What are your thoughts concerning the possibility of D65 and D202 consolidation?
Thanks for this, Tom! It would be great to at least try to make all candidates talk about not just what they believe in, but how they’re going to accomplish xyz. In other words, have them describe the actual steps they will take to be more transparent, to hold the superintendent accountable, etc. What affirmative steps do you plan on taking in your first 3 months on the Board to send a message to the public that you’ve heard us and are working to ensure that what happened over the last 5 years or so will never happen again? You’ve done this in your questions and I applaud that.
We need change. Tough focused people that are ready to get to work. And don’t care about being popular or being a walking yard sign. For me —only those that can get past throwing down a bunch of words (I believe in blah blah blah) will end up on my “consider” list.
Oh and if a candidate will commit to demanding a full and complete audit of the entire district —every element from admin, to hr, to finance, to curriculum, as well as every school building, etc … from top to bottom —and then commit to sharing results with us (that’s transparency) and creating deliverables and identifying actions that will be taken —that candidate will get my vote.
I would just like to ask them in a very clear way if they plan on replacing the current superintendent. That is their #1 job as described by the IASB - being the ones who hire the best Superintendent possible for the job. Dr Turner has tried her best, but I'm unconvinced she is the best person for for the job, as it exists now.
You have a question about bringing back advanced math. What about keeping letter grades in middle school? The move away from letter grades seems like a bad idea, but my kid is still a few years away from enrolling in kindergarten so I’m no expert.
Crazy how much is being spend on the 3rd ward aldermanic race. Gennifer Greer just filed a disclosure which revealed $8k total in donations from the president of a Florida energy company and a big check from a Chicago management consultant firm.
Shawn Illes has loaned his campagin a few thousand bucks and a fresh $5k check from Mary FInnegan, wife of Paul who runs Madison Dearborn Equity a big private equity firm.
Insane that you are seeing people like Pinkard and Greer bringing in these huge amounts from outside people
Thanks for mentioning the Mayor's race. What strikes me on the Envision project is just how poorly run it has been. While I generally agree with the goals of the plan, and many of the proposed solutions, the proposed comp and zoning plans are incomplete and clearly missing many important details.
It is a little hard for me to take Biss seriously on this, as he must have been aware of the poor performance of the consultants while he was running around calling skeptics of this plan immoral.
Evanston is lucky to have engaged volunteers on the boards. The Land Use Commission seems to be getting this process back on track. In my opinion a project of this level of importance should have always been the hands of our hard working board members. But let's not forget the amount of vacancies Biss has left on the boards, and his efforts to marginalize and discredit them (see his "food fight" comments).
I am a proponent for dense urban development, but you are right the Envision Evanston doc is a joke--especially the transportation chapter. The flip side of land use reform is transportation: more density theoretically brings more things closer together and the ability for people to use transit, bikes, and walking more frequently.
The problem is that the city has little control over transit and hasn't put any meaningful investment in bike and ped infrastructure.
The first goal of the transport chapter is to "Collaborate with and support regional transit partners to improve and expand Evanston’s transit network coverage, service levels, and vehicle decarbonization."
Ok, great. The CTA is in shambles and the city has zero authority to compel them to do anything. What the hell does it mean to "collaborate" when you have no power and have never spent ANY money on transit?!?! It is just BS.
You can go down the list on the transport chapter and basically everything that is in there has been in city plans going back twenty years--and very little has been accomplished.
I was a Biss fan but it is clear that this whole enterprise is meant to be an arrow in his quiver that he can use to leverage in a Congressional campaign or to secure an undersecretary position in the next Democratic administration.
I'm not sure about Boarini, though. Whenever reps from "the Same Thirty People" line up behind someone that makes me pause.
Yeah, just as a dispassionate observer (I can't force myself to care about zoning and I'm a renter) - the rollout of this thing seems like a high risk move during an election year (pissing off all the high turnout land owners). I guess maybe he was hoping the consultants would hit a home run? The next round of consultants have way more PR/Comms background than the prior ones, if that tells you anything. Boarini isn't a perfect candidate (I like him personally), but Biss really shot himself in the foot with this one.
Speaking of Boards, is there anyone on the ethics board yet? or is that still empty?
Is it true that Biss’ opponent is dating Alderperson Kelly? If not, I’m happy to tamp down that rumor amongst my pals. If yes, how’s that not the biggest conflict of interest when it comes to voting (Mayor makes tie breaking vote, right?)?
I guess my question is what warrants a conflict? Voting on the same piece of legislation at all? Him voting on a piece of legislation that she worked on? Referred?
The $66k in campaign contributions to Biss immediately following the Ryan Field vote seem like much more of a conflict than a mayor's love life. But maybe that's just me.
Yeah as long as they're transparent about it, I think its fine. I think the same is true for city council members working as lobbyists, they just have to disclose and recuse.
I'm trying to think of a case where there might be a conflict here - an example might be if Jeff wanted to award some no-bid contract to a family friend or something. I think she would have to recuse herself, but she'd have to do that anyway if this person was a friend.
I think it's also relevant that they're both elected positions, if either of them was a staffer vs elected office, I think it would be messier.
What if the mayor needs to cast a tie breaking vote? And his partner has voted contributing to that tie? Does the mayor just not vote —thus the issue fails? Can that scenario be used to get to a certain outcome? Are ties even common? I’m not certain myself—but that possible scenario makes me uncomfortable. Maybe that’s just me….thoughts?
Some of these candidate donations seem really large. What’s the normal range for donations to a school board candidate and how much does a candidate need to run a campaign?
Nichole Pinkard is the only one raising outsized amounts of cash. Her major donor is an heir to the billionaire Koehler family who doesn't even live in Evanston. She has also gotten a couple $1,000 donations from Steve Hagerty and a health care company executive from Wilmette.
Some of the others are putting limited amounts of their own money into the campaign, but it appears as if Pinkard has a cadre of big-money out-of-towners supporting her campaign.
Normally candidates spend a few hundred bucks during the whole campaign, but Pinkard has already raised $10,000 and we aren't even a month away from early voting yet.
Well, to be fair, I don't know if everyone has filed their documents related to this yet. Only 6 candidates were even IN the state system and the technical filing date is not until the end of March
Isn’t there a more expeditious requirement for reporting contributions in excess of $1000? Those always seem to be reported before the quarterly filings.
The Koehler Billionaire has given two checks in excess of $1k.
This type of money IS VERY UNUSUAL for a school board race. I don’t think Sergio or Biz raised any more than $900 or $1000 total during their last campaign.
Pinkard is taking the Hagerty playbook from his mayoral run. And of course he is a contributor as well.
Not a lot of "light reading" on the mechanics of filing requirements, but sharing one resource in case anyone wants to dig in: https://www.dcba.org/mpage/v32-Neal-Smith
This is probably the most pertinent:
"In addition to the D-2 filing obligation that all political committees have, some committees will be obligated to reports known as “A-1 Reports” and “B-1 Reports.” An A-1 Report must be filed whenever a committee receives a contribution of $1,000 or more from a single source. The B-1 Report is filed whenever a committee makes an independent expenditure totaling $1,000 or more. Both reports are due within five business days following the contribution or expenditure. The time period for filings is shortened to two business days within the 60-day period before an election."
TL;DR - there are quicker-turn filing obligations for contributions and expenses of $1000+. Five business days to begin with, and two business days within 60 days of the election (a window which we are now within).
This kind of performative bullshit is exactly why we are where we are. People think that this kind of tripe is more important than answering questions like- where exactly is the money going to come from to repair the schools? In Evanston, “equity”, “transparency” and other “ “ words du jour are all you need to influence the sheeple. You know what? I don’t give a shit what your campaign manager’s pronouns are and it’s presumptuous for them to think I do. And the whole Native American fake apologist nonsense -Jesus- no wonder Trump won!! Ridiculous. Wyman is off my list.
I get why some people see land acknowledgments as performative, especially when they aren’t backed by real action. But at their best, they can be a meaningful way to recognize Indigenous history, sovereignty, and ongoing presence. They’re not a replacement for real change, but they can be a step toward awareness and accountability—especially if followed up with concrete support for Indigenous communities. Same for acknowledging pronouns.
Agreed. But what you suggest isn’t happening and I am not even aware of an indigenous population on the North Shore. Maybe there is one and that’s the problem. This seems like just another thing people say to seem super concerned about population segments while avoiding actual issues that affect ALL kids. I’m so sick of the “equity-speak”
In this town when there hasn’t been a whole lot of lifting up of marginalized communities in d65 for a half a decade at least. Come and tell me about your pronouns and your acknowledgement of the land grab when students of color can read at grade level. I’m just super dissatisfied with the continued focus on optics instead of substance.
It's interesting when you think about it - it *has* raised awareness to the issue and in particular, the awareness that very little material improvements are being made. So maybe it has been successful in a way!?
No! It’s preaching to the choir and literally has zero impact on native communities. It’s for other white people, not for the victims. Can we just cease the thinking that we are better than other people if, 200 years later, we faux apologize for something someone else did, like that helps? For one- if you don’t know about this, you didn’t pay attention in school and no amount of nothing now is gonna help you. For two, ain’t no way anyone is giving their land back to anyone. None of these people have thought to donate their homes/property back to people with native dna. They don’t go on trips to other states with reservations and volunteer service. I have- my kids have. We don’t list it on our resumes or college apps. It’s crap. White man conquered indigenous tribes and occupied the land. Like has happened anll over the globe forever and in a way still happens to you and me today by capitalism. I digress. But so…? If you don’t have an answer or aren’t doing anything about it except to make your email signature longer, shut it. That person’s job is to help the candidate explain why TODAY, they should be in a position of power to turn around an institution in dire straits. And if you think the first thing is to preface communication with irrelevant apologies backed up by nothing, you don’t have my confidence you are going to actually do anything for black and brown students in the district. Just like Sergio sold out his people. Just like the current Board screwed the black community with this half-ass albatross that hurts the b/b kids living outside the 5th ward because it is bankrupting their schools. Just like the gap widens each year. All because they had to have longer email signatures. I want to hear relevant, focussed statements from candidates about what makes them different from what we got today. But just in case it helps, instead of apologizing to the other white people watching your video, you could *quietly* financially support narf.org. That would meaningful and helpful.
It reminds me of the "Latinx" nonsense. I speak fluent Spanish as a second language and talk to native Spanish speakers all the time and pretty much all of them think "Latinx" is stupid and are resentful of a gringo creation that debases the language.
I should add that "Latino" is not well-liked either. Most folks would rather be referred to as a salvadoreño, a Mexicano, Hondureño, etc...
It is the "graduate school gender studies seminar room" equivalent of the Gulf of America.
Thanks for posting this - I've driven by this museum but never had the chance to stop in. At some point I did a ton of research on the land in Evanston/Wilmette and the various treaties, but I was mostly in the Wilmette Historical Museum (they really tied up all the loose ends making sure the properties were transferred from the Ouilmettes). I will still die on a hill that the City should've donated the Harley Clarke property to the Prairie Band or at least some kind of revenue share. I wish more locals (especially Northwestern) would consider finding more ways to repatriate land instead just symbolic gestures.
The Newberry library just had an amazing exhibit recently too, where they actually had on loan some of the original treaties and maps from the Federal Government. It was pretty wild to see the actual signatures and stamps.
While the land acknowledgement mentioned that Evanston is on the historical land of the Council of the Three Fires, I was offended that they didn't acknowledge all of the cephalopods, trilobites, and stromatoporoids that were here during the Silurian Period who were violently expelled by the forces of plate tectonics.
The D65 one feels like a prayer now at the beginning of each meeting and sucks up 10 mins. I'm not sure I understand what the point is.
One of my favorite writers (and native american) Sherman Alexie once tweeted something like "I'll accept your land acknowledgement as soon as you're on the flight back to Europe"
I would be curious about which candidates support differentiated instruction. https://wilmette39.ss9.sharpschool.com/for_students/differentiated_instruction This teaching strategy acknowledges that students have different learning speeds and learning styles, and strives to meet each child where they are, so students can keep moving forward with a thorough focus on comprehension at each step. It’s a big strength of Wilmette’s approach, and used to also be a strength of D65.
These are good questions--although I would like to know the candidates' position on having a public superintendent search where finalists are brought in for public events prior to an offer being made.
The last two superintendents were hired in secret and a lot of the mistrust people have with the board is wondering why they are hiring people with such limited experience, dodgy financial backgrounds, and ineligible to work for other districts.
The board needs to go back to a public process for superintendent searches. This is key for transparency.
Multiple candidates are talking about "restoring trust" or running on "transparency." If they can't make a simple pledge to have public superintendent searches, then those are just platitudes.
I am assuming Tom already sent the questions out, but if you are a candidate reading this there is no reason you can't weave a pledge for open superintendent searches into the first question.
Also, for Tom--I am struck by the lack of a question regarding transparency! Isn't that, like, the whole purpose of "FOIA"gras?!?!?!?!
Hah! I actually assumed (maybe improperly) that 12/12 candidates in this case support a public superintendent search, so I didn't even bother to ask. It might be too late to weasel the question in, but let me see what I can come up with - also this might be in one of the other dozen questionnaires they have to fill out too. I will look around
I've looked at all of the candidate websites and haven't seen this specifically addressed.
Andrew Wymer did not mention it at all once he took the floor after the "land acknowledgement" at his campaign kickoff. (At least according to the video).
This makes me think of another question: "Do you believe that land acknowledgements are a performative and purposeless stunt?" Anyone who says no can't have my vote.
This is a fair question and a good call-out, Theo. I am happy to incorporate this into my responses and/or website. I almost had it as a bullet on my Vision page but was trying to strike a balance between detailed and digestible given the wide range of likely voters we need to connect with. Some are really high-information on the issues of D65 and want to know specifics, while others might want it at a higher level.
I'm always happy to take a deeper dive into areas of specific relevance but I generally agree that we shouldn't assume all 12 candidates are completely aligned without confirmation -- this raises the bar of accountability down the line if you have receipts.
On the Superintendent search, given the opportunity, I would support it being an open search with engagement opportunities that bring the community along through the process. I've heard the narrative that it's harder to get as many candidates in an open search, but I think that's something we need to assess publicly before considering alternatives.
An open search will only take us so far, too. Much depends on the board's willingness to implement a contract with well-written, specific goals aligned with our vision and strategic plan. That better empowers the Board to serve the community through their core function of oversight, when there's a clear (and ambitious) bar for success.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Peter.
I agree with your final paragraph, 100%.
In terms of the search, the board used the logic that a closed search will get us better candidates back in 2019, and look where that got us!
Horton was running around the country in 2019 participating in open searches. So, even if you were a Horton fan, an open search wouldn't dissuade such a great candidate.
Of course when Horton was a finalist Board president Suni Kartha claimed that he requested "confidentiality to remain in the search." This is really hard to believe and--I think--damaged the board's credibility. Kartha expected us to believe that Horton was fine with people knowing he was applying in Rochester, Grand Rapids, and Indianapolis, but wanted to keep the Evanston interview a secret?!?! That's absurd.
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/11/12/city/district-65-narrows-search-for-superintendent/
I think having a closed process--especially one accompanied by Kartha's seeming mendacity--sent the message to Horton that transparency and responsiveness to the community were not core values of the board. It emboldened him to engage in questionable behavior--reckless spending, sending contracts to his business partners, etc....
Maybe I'm naive, but I think if in 2019 Horton had been publicly named as a group of finalists there would have been immediate public pressure to not hire him. His slim resume and dodgy financial background should have been enough to disqualify him. Under a public process there would have been no way that he could have survived.
Our second closed search brought us someone who CPS went to the extraordinary lengths of putting on a "do not hire" list. Was this the best candidate who applied? We have no idea because of the closed search.
Many districts around the state and nation conduct public searches. You can search "superintendent search finalists" on google news and see scores of people applying for superintendent positions. Just take a look at Ann Arbor's search last year. They had six finalists and pretty much every candidate had more experience than Turner. We have no idea what the pool liked like here.
https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2024/03/these-are-the-6-candidates-vying-to-become-ann-arbor-schools-next-superintendent.html
Maybe the open search process is messier, but it goes further in the long run to build confidence in the administration and the board.
Theo - basically all the candidates are talking up ‘transparency’ as it is something voters of all stripes can approve of as a general concept. Tom has some great questions to root out who these candidates really are as candidates but I agree your question about a public supt. search would be good to add as well, to hold the candidates feet to the fire on the ‘transparency’ that is so easy to talk up as a general concept without having actual specific scenarios applied.
Tied to the question of technology is the question of support for a highly regimented ‘canned curriculum’ that levels the field between experienced and inexperienced teacher and provides a ‘uniform experience’ (a board member’s words) of milquetoast education for all classes , vs what most of us adults had, which was some memorable, excellent teachers (Mr Chips, etc), some good teachers and some just ok teachers. D65 board has mentioned wanting to have a uniform experience, but once again this will be at a lower common denominator.
D65 teacher/substack blogger Simone Larson (who Tom steered me to) writes about how this diminishes the art of teaching for those teachers who are accomplished in that art. For what D65 is paying, I would hope we could rely on teachers to teach without tying them to a dictated curriculum (or we can save D65 finances by just hiring robots instead). Maybe this is needed in the ‘turnaround’ CPS schools that Horton came from, but Evanston can and should do better!
Ironically, in ‘Progressive’ communities such as Evanston, the public schools have been veering away from what is considered progressive in the field of education (progressive is moving away from screens and back toward play-based and experiential learning, and now this has some very solid scientific backing, such as in the writings of Jonathan Haidt, leveraging mammal biology and human anthropology, etc. to make the case).
Agree! Further, teachers should write curriculum tied to District 65 standards. Purchasing canned curriculum undermines best practices.
Personally, I don’t understand the obsession about “transparency.” Sure, make information accessible if someone - citizens, journalist - want it. But I want to elect someone whose judgement I trust and then go about my life. That’s the benefit of representative (rather than direct) democracy. What am I missing?
For me, the main transparency violation of the current board is the way they have conducted the superintendent searches. The Horton hire totally broke decades of precedent. The public had no idea who the finalists were and Horton's name was not released until after the contract was signed.
It was appalling that they followed the same process with Turner.
Probably the most important duty of the board is to hire a Superintendent. It is impossible for the public to evaluate the board's decision making when they are doing this in total secrecy.
I would say, in terms of judgment, when I googled Horton's name after he was hired and saw that he owed tens of thousands of dollars to the City of Chicago, saw his public statements made during other superintendent interviews, and his slim resume, and the fact that the Board had sent out an email saying the finalists had "requested anonymity to remain in the search" all raised red flags.
My initial reaction was "What is the board thinking? This is not going to end well."
I honestly think they would have had to think twice to present Horton as a viable candidate if there had been an open search.
I have to push back on your assertion that every candidate has said “yes, we believe in both financial sustainability and equity.” Agree with the portion about financial sustainability, but many of the candidates have made little to no mention about equity in their platforms, forums, and websites. Let's not hand out free passes where they haven't been earned.
I think a good question would be to ask what a candidate’s ‘Equity’ vision is, and how they would like to see it be enacted in D65 policies and programs; i.e. would this be eliminating advanced math to level the field or would it be programs to encourage and provide academic support to those low income students who show potential for advanced coursework, etc.
Thank you Tom for this very helpful update on the School Board candidates. My children are adults but I will research this carefully. Do you receive the emails from Governor Pritzker's office? I find the emails informative. Yesterday he announced an appointment that is important to all of us since our rights are under serious attack from the current administration in DC. You can look this up if you have time to read all the details. They do not send the emails out with a "view inbrowser option."
"Amy Meek to Serve as Deputy Director of the Illinois Department of Human Rights
After 8 years of service, Alex Bautista concludes his tenure at IDHR
CHICAGO – Today, the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) announced Amy Meek will serve as the agency’s next Deputy Director. Meek is an experienced civil rights attorney and brings an exceptional record of leadership in government and the nonprofit sector. The announcement comes alongside Alex Bautista’s transition from IDHR after nearly 8 years of service to work on special projects with the Governor’s Office of New Americans."
Hi, Tom - Great questions! I would love to hear candidates’ perspectives on the following: What ideas do you have to address the current issue of low staff morale? What are your thoughts concerning the possibility of D65 and D202 consolidation?
I originally included a consolidation question (trust me I definitely want to ask) but removed for the sake of space!
Thanks for this, Tom! It would be great to at least try to make all candidates talk about not just what they believe in, but how they’re going to accomplish xyz. In other words, have them describe the actual steps they will take to be more transparent, to hold the superintendent accountable, etc. What affirmative steps do you plan on taking in your first 3 months on the Board to send a message to the public that you’ve heard us and are working to ensure that what happened over the last 5 years or so will never happen again? You’ve done this in your questions and I applaud that.
We need change. Tough focused people that are ready to get to work. And don’t care about being popular or being a walking yard sign. For me —only those that can get past throwing down a bunch of words (I believe in blah blah blah) will end up on my “consider” list.
Oh and if a candidate will commit to demanding a full and complete audit of the entire district —every element from admin, to hr, to finance, to curriculum, as well as every school building, etc … from top to bottom —and then commit to sharing results with us (that’s transparency) and creating deliverables and identifying actions that will be taken —that candidate will get my vote.
I would just like to ask them in a very clear way if they plan on replacing the current superintendent. That is their #1 job as described by the IASB - being the ones who hire the best Superintendent possible for the job. Dr Turner has tried her best, but I'm unconvinced she is the best person for for the job, as it exists now.
Hi Tom,
You have a question about bringing back advanced math. What about keeping letter grades in middle school? The move away from letter grades seems like a bad idea, but my kid is still a few years away from enrolling in kindergarten so I’m no expert.
Yeah the "Standards Based grading" thing has been a mixed bag, I think. But in terms of priorities, probably not top of the heap (yet)
Crazy how much is being spend on the 3rd ward aldermanic race. Gennifer Greer just filed a disclosure which revealed $8k total in donations from the president of a Florida energy company and a big check from a Chicago management consultant firm.
Shawn Illes has loaned his campagin a few thousand bucks and a fresh $5k check from Mary FInnegan, wife of Paul who runs Madison Dearborn Equity a big private equity firm.
Insane that you are seeing people like Pinkard and Greer bringing in these huge amounts from outside people
Thanks for mentioning the Mayor's race. What strikes me on the Envision project is just how poorly run it has been. While I generally agree with the goals of the plan, and many of the proposed solutions, the proposed comp and zoning plans are incomplete and clearly missing many important details.
It is a little hard for me to take Biss seriously on this, as he must have been aware of the poor performance of the consultants while he was running around calling skeptics of this plan immoral.
Evanston is lucky to have engaged volunteers on the boards. The Land Use Commission seems to be getting this process back on track. In my opinion a project of this level of importance should have always been the hands of our hard working board members. But let's not forget the amount of vacancies Biss has left on the boards, and his efforts to marginalize and discredit them (see his "food fight" comments).
I am a proponent for dense urban development, but you are right the Envision Evanston doc is a joke--especially the transportation chapter. The flip side of land use reform is transportation: more density theoretically brings more things closer together and the ability for people to use transit, bikes, and walking more frequently.
The problem is that the city has little control over transit and hasn't put any meaningful investment in bike and ped infrastructure.
The first goal of the transport chapter is to "Collaborate with and support regional transit partners to improve and expand Evanston’s transit network coverage, service levels, and vehicle decarbonization."
Ok, great. The CTA is in shambles and the city has zero authority to compel them to do anything. What the hell does it mean to "collaborate" when you have no power and have never spent ANY money on transit?!?! It is just BS.
You can go down the list on the transport chapter and basically everything that is in there has been in city plans going back twenty years--and very little has been accomplished.
I was a Biss fan but it is clear that this whole enterprise is meant to be an arrow in his quiver that he can use to leverage in a Congressional campaign or to secure an undersecretary position in the next Democratic administration.
I'm not sure about Boarini, though. Whenever reps from "the Same Thirty People" line up behind someone that makes me pause.
Yeah, just as a dispassionate observer (I can't force myself to care about zoning and I'm a renter) - the rollout of this thing seems like a high risk move during an election year (pissing off all the high turnout land owners). I guess maybe he was hoping the consultants would hit a home run? The next round of consultants have way more PR/Comms background than the prior ones, if that tells you anything. Boarini isn't a perfect candidate (I like him personally), but Biss really shot himself in the foot with this one.
Speaking of Boards, is there anyone on the ethics board yet? or is that still empty?
Is it true that Biss’ opponent is dating Alderperson Kelly? If not, I’m happy to tamp down that rumor amongst my pals. If yes, how’s that not the biggest conflict of interest when it comes to voting (Mayor makes tie breaking vote, right?)?
They have both stated they would recuse themselves in any conflict of interest: https://dailynorthwestern.com/2025/01/29/city/local-commitment-underpins-jeff-boarinis-mayoral-run/
I guess my question is what warrants a conflict? Voting on the same piece of legislation at all? Him voting on a piece of legislation that she worked on? Referred?
The $66k in campaign contributions to Biss immediately following the Ryan Field vote seem like much more of a conflict than a mayor's love life. But maybe that's just me.
Yeah as long as they're transparent about it, I think its fine. I think the same is true for city council members working as lobbyists, they just have to disclose and recuse.
I'm trying to think of a case where there might be a conflict here - an example might be if Jeff wanted to award some no-bid contract to a family friend or something. I think she would have to recuse herself, but she'd have to do that anyway if this person was a friend.
I think it's also relevant that they're both elected positions, if either of them was a staffer vs elected office, I think it would be messier.
What if the mayor needs to cast a tie breaking vote? And his partner has voted contributing to that tie? Does the mayor just not vote —thus the issue fails? Can that scenario be used to get to a certain outcome? Are ties even common? I’m not certain myself—but that possible scenario makes me uncomfortable. Maybe that’s just me….thoughts?
She isn't running for reelection. No idea if they are a couple but it is a nonissue.
She is running for re-election against Hackney:
https://lwve.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=303977&module_id=710432
I don't know either
She is running.
Some of these candidate donations seem really large. What’s the normal range for donations to a school board candidate and how much does a candidate need to run a campaign?
Nichole Pinkard is the only one raising outsized amounts of cash. Her major donor is an heir to the billionaire Koehler family who doesn't even live in Evanston. She has also gotten a couple $1,000 donations from Steve Hagerty and a health care company executive from Wilmette.
Some of the others are putting limited amounts of their own money into the campaign, but it appears as if Pinkard has a cadre of big-money out-of-towners supporting her campaign.
Normally candidates spend a few hundred bucks during the whole campaign, but Pinkard has already raised $10,000 and we aren't even a month away from early voting yet.
It is very curious and unusual.
Well, to be fair, I don't know if everyone has filed their documents related to this yet. Only 6 candidates were even IN the state system and the technical filing date is not until the end of March
Isn’t there a more expeditious requirement for reporting contributions in excess of $1000? Those always seem to be reported before the quarterly filings.
The Koehler Billionaire has given two checks in excess of $1k.
This type of money IS VERY UNUSUAL for a school board race. I don’t think Sergio or Biz raised any more than $900 or $1000 total during their last campaign.
Pinkard is taking the Hagerty playbook from his mayoral run. And of course he is a contributor as well.
Not a lot of "light reading" on the mechanics of filing requirements, but sharing one resource in case anyone wants to dig in: https://www.dcba.org/mpage/v32-Neal-Smith
This is probably the most pertinent:
"In addition to the D-2 filing obligation that all political committees have, some committees will be obligated to reports known as “A-1 Reports” and “B-1 Reports.” An A-1 Report must be filed whenever a committee receives a contribution of $1,000 or more from a single source. The B-1 Report is filed whenever a committee makes an independent expenditure totaling $1,000 or more. Both reports are due within five business days following the contribution or expenditure. The time period for filings is shortened to two business days within the 60-day period before an election."
TL;DR - there are quicker-turn filing obligations for contributions and expenses of $1000+. Five business days to begin with, and two business days within 60 days of the election (a window which we are now within).
😱
Great questions.
Right. It’s a distraction from the shitshow we need to focus on.
A District employee posted a video of Andrew Wymer's campaign kickoff on Facebook.
It began with his campaign manager sharing her pronouns, immediately followed by a "land acknowledgement."
This kind of performative bullshit is exactly why we are where we are. People think that this kind of tripe is more important than answering questions like- where exactly is the money going to come from to repair the schools? In Evanston, “equity”, “transparency” and other “ “ words du jour are all you need to influence the sheeple. You know what? I don’t give a shit what your campaign manager’s pronouns are and it’s presumptuous for them to think I do. And the whole Native American fake apologist nonsense -Jesus- no wonder Trump won!! Ridiculous. Wyman is off my list.
I get why some people see land acknowledgments as performative, especially when they aren’t backed by real action. But at their best, they can be a meaningful way to recognize Indigenous history, sovereignty, and ongoing presence. They’re not a replacement for real change, but they can be a step toward awareness and accountability—especially if followed up with concrete support for Indigenous communities. Same for acknowledging pronouns.
Agreed. But what you suggest isn’t happening and I am not even aware of an indigenous population on the North Shore. Maybe there is one and that’s the problem. This seems like just another thing people say to seem super concerned about population segments while avoiding actual issues that affect ALL kids. I’m so sick of the “equity-speak”
In this town when there hasn’t been a whole lot of lifting up of marginalized communities in d65 for a half a decade at least. Come and tell me about your pronouns and your acknowledgement of the land grab when students of color can read at grade level. I’m just super dissatisfied with the continued focus on optics instead of substance.
It's interesting when you think about it - it *has* raised awareness to the issue and in particular, the awareness that very little material improvements are being made. So maybe it has been successful in a way!?
No! It’s preaching to the choir and literally has zero impact on native communities. It’s for other white people, not for the victims. Can we just cease the thinking that we are better than other people if, 200 years later, we faux apologize for something someone else did, like that helps? For one- if you don’t know about this, you didn’t pay attention in school and no amount of nothing now is gonna help you. For two, ain’t no way anyone is giving their land back to anyone. None of these people have thought to donate their homes/property back to people with native dna. They don’t go on trips to other states with reservations and volunteer service. I have- my kids have. We don’t list it on our resumes or college apps. It’s crap. White man conquered indigenous tribes and occupied the land. Like has happened anll over the globe forever and in a way still happens to you and me today by capitalism. I digress. But so…? If you don’t have an answer or aren’t doing anything about it except to make your email signature longer, shut it. That person’s job is to help the candidate explain why TODAY, they should be in a position of power to turn around an institution in dire straits. And if you think the first thing is to preface communication with irrelevant apologies backed up by nothing, you don’t have my confidence you are going to actually do anything for black and brown students in the district. Just like Sergio sold out his people. Just like the current Board screwed the black community with this half-ass albatross that hurts the b/b kids living outside the 5th ward because it is bankrupting their schools. Just like the gap widens each year. All because they had to have longer email signatures. I want to hear relevant, focussed statements from candidates about what makes them different from what we got today. But just in case it helps, instead of apologizing to the other white people watching your video, you could *quietly* financially support narf.org. That would meaningful and helpful.
That's what I'm saying - had it not been for the performative stuff you wouldn't be here yelling about it :)
It reminds me of the "Latinx" nonsense. I speak fluent Spanish as a second language and talk to native Spanish speakers all the time and pretty much all of them think "Latinx" is stupid and are resentful of a gringo creation that debases the language.
I should add that "Latino" is not well-liked either. Most folks would rather be referred to as a salvadoreño, a Mexicano, Hondureño, etc...
It is the "graduate school gender studies seminar room" equivalent of the Gulf of America.
https://gichigamiin-museum.org/
A great place to learn about the indigenous peoples who ARE on the North Shore.
Thanks for posting this - I've driven by this museum but never had the chance to stop in. At some point I did a ton of research on the land in Evanston/Wilmette and the various treaties, but I was mostly in the Wilmette Historical Museum (they really tied up all the loose ends making sure the properties were transferred from the Ouilmettes). I will still die on a hill that the City should've donated the Harley Clarke property to the Prairie Band or at least some kind of revenue share. I wish more locals (especially Northwestern) would consider finding more ways to repatriate land instead just symbolic gestures.
The Newberry library just had an amazing exhibit recently too, where they actually had on loan some of the original treaties and maps from the Federal Government. It was pretty wild to see the actual signatures and stamps.
https://www.newberry.org/calendar/indigenous-chicago
Where did they post this on facebook (in a group?) and was it while they were on the clock? If you have a screenshot, email me
It wasn't on the clock. He posted it on the D65 Equity Army group. But you can see it here without a Facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/dan.coyne.921/videos/969451758004280/
While the land acknowledgement mentioned that Evanston is on the historical land of the Council of the Three Fires, I was offended that they didn't acknowledge all of the cephalopods, trilobites, and stromatoporoids that were here during the Silurian Period who were violently expelled by the forces of plate tectonics.
He lost my vote for that mishap.
Until we commit to returning land to the native tribes, the land acknowledgements are just performative bullshit.
I documented the history of Evanston's land in this story:
https://www.foiagras.com/p/is-the-harley-clark-mansion-on-native
The D65 one feels like a prayer now at the beginning of each meeting and sucks up 10 mins. I'm not sure I understand what the point is.
One of my favorite writers (and native american) Sherman Alexie once tweeted something like "I'll accept your land acknowledgement as soon as you're on the flight back to Europe"
The D65 land acknowledgment reads like a bad Portlandia skit.
But, hey, our Paleozoic predecessors need some love!
I keep a trilobyte fossil on my desk just to remind me that everything is temporary and I might be next!