I’m not sure why Kingsley couldn’t be turned into the Tom Hayden Charter School of Jazz. It’s just an idea. Opportunity it hoarding is some leftist crap people in Evanston hurl in order to insinuate that white people are racist and to avoid having real conversations based in fact and reality. I believe BR should remain for the reasons stated here but if Kingsley is low in enrollment, why can’t BR be moved as a school within a school there? I bet a lot of families would decide to join the TWI program if it were offered. Seems like there are a lot of ideas that could be pitched, this Board just doesn’t want to spend one more minute in front of the public than it has to because they know they suck. There exists a fundraising pipeline for anyone who is interested in running for the Board. I think, based on comments even the RT is publishing, that the public is starting to see the light. There doesn’t need to be so much fear of running any longer.
That's definitely an option the could consider - close down and sell the existing BR building and move the K-5 TWI program to Kingsley. The only reason they wouldn't do this, though, is because it's so close to the new fifth ward school that they might as well not do TWI in the fifth ward school - which is probably a deal breaker for the Board.
I like the Tom Hayden school of Jazz idea too! Barring that, combining Kingsley and Bessie Rhodes makes a lot of sense. Speaking as a Bessie Rhodes parent I know our community is quite aware of the financial difficulties of the district. We're open to solutions that keep our community intact and we're not wedded to the physical building. We're just looking for a solution and a home rather than being scattered to the four winds and deprived of the language emphasis and inclusivity that make our current school a special place.
That seems like a reasonable idea? Move BR to Kingsley, give Kingsley parents the option to do Fifth ward school, Orrington, or Linconlwood. It's not like any of the schools are bursting at the seams.
OR they can just convert all walkable schools to Tom Hayden School of Jazz' and we can become a much cooler city.
I don't think they'd outright give those families the full optionality of "choosing" a school vs. being a little more lenient around attendance waivers in the years following the SAP3 recommended map going into effect. But don't you think there's concern that if you put BR in at Kingsley, it would dent the 5th ward school attendance enough to be a bad look? They have to want that school to look pretty full, right?
Regarding FN1, Tom, I’ll be curious to see if any other readers will chime in that have kids that are differently abled; differentiated learners. What I’ve seen over the course of time is the following: two districts who hardly ever do, outright, what the law requires them to do when it comes to this cohort of students. Not until lawyers are brought in to threaten or actually take action. And who does that ultimately truly hurt? The families that don’t have the means to take that necessary step. It’s the opposite of the equity both districts bend over backwards to claim that they’re an embodiment of…..it’s so warped.
I’ve heard that the largest budget item for 202 is legal fees. And you can only image the cost of not doing the right thing in the first place —if the student wins, the district has to pay all of their own attorneys fees plus those of the plaintiff, etc. —this is on top of all the additional supports required by law including, where appropriate, outplacement (and transportation there & back —which can include driving services, etc). It’s nuts. Perhaps a topic of another story(it’s). How these families & their kids are treated is shameful. It’s why people know not to stay in Evanston if their kids end up needing more.
You have to threaten legal action to get the district to pay attention. I wish my child's IEP was opportunity hoarding, I would give anything to have him not need it. D65 will do anything to give the absolute least amount of services.
This is going to sound depressing, but this is a nationwide problem and Evanston at least has things like CASE. Much much worse in other places around the US
Maybe. But for school districts that bathe themselves in caring for/prioritizing the minoritized and marginalized, it is hardly walking the walk. IMHO.
As one of the participants on the original SAP committee, I want to correct the misimpression that the SAP committee decided to build a school in the 5th Ward. That decision had already been made by the District when SAP was formed. You can see from the memo you cited that one of the charges to the committee was to determine how to open a 5th Ward school in a fiscally responsible manner.
Yes exactly!!! You don't want to segregate them in their own buildings but if you have a bunch of parents that want bilingual education for their kids going the other way (english-to-spanish) its a win-win for everyone. I don't know why the board can't see this.
This might sound harsh but the best thing for the non-English speaking kids is to be in an exclusively English speaking environment with supports. Personal experience - 9 year old sister was talking like a native after 6 months. Her 13 year old sister took a little longer. But if we want these kids to succeed long term, English mastery is priority #1. And the non-Spanish speaking families who want emersion, there are apps for this 😀
Svetlana is right. I guarantee you that every English-only speaking parent who sends their kid to TWI would, if they moved to a different country, put their child in a regular classroom so they could learn the new language very quickly. Even the Spanish-speaking parents here in Evanston lean towards that approach since I know that TWI has, at least in the past, desperately recruited more Spanish-speaking kids to balance out the large number of English-speaking kids who apply. The TWI program is a feel-good program that’s beloved by English-only parents who think the tiny class sizes are good (not always the case) and are thrilled to avoid paying for extracurricular Spanish lessons. The only benefit I see is for parents who don’t speak English who can easily communicate with their children’s TWI teachers. it would be a lot less expensive to hire full-time Spanish interpreters for every school than it would be to keep this tiny, struggling school open. And the district should start Spanish language instruction in early elementary school - not seventh grade - so everyone can benefit from learning another language. The TWI program shields D65 from criticism for not doing so.
This is true. We have kids in TWI and I know several Spanish-speaking parents who have pulled their kids out of TWI and into the English classroom as they begin to understand the implications of the program and they get more confident about navigating the bureaucracy.
As you said, the District pushes Spanish kids into TWI and parents often don't realize possible choices. This is especially the case with newer immigrants. In fact, all of the Spanish-speaking parents I know who have pulled their kids from TWI are recent immigrants who think it is silly and that their kids should be learning English.
The "guarantee" that you mention is also spot on. We spent last summer in a Spanish speaking country and brought along one of the cousins in addition to our TWI kids. The cousin didn't have any Spanish while our kids were TWI but we enrolled them all in a local school while we were there.
All instruction was in Spanish. The cousin struggled for a couple weeks, but by the end of the summer she was as good with Spanish as our kids who had been in TWI for 3-4 years. To your point about starting language instruction for everyone at an early age, this school was giving their kids a unit in English a couple of times a week. We found that these kids were actually pretty good at English even though it wasn't an immersion experience.
Our main beef with TWI is that it is a real crapshoot with getting a decent teacher. I am not sure if this is just a TWI thing, but we have seen a ton of turnover at our school of TWI teachers and we have had a couple who had never been in a classroom before.
Thank you to everyone sharing your feedback and experiences. I believe we may be confusing the dual language and TWI program models with the history and present ways in which District 65 has been implementing these programs.
The models themselves, and TWI in particular (dual language is an umbrella term, and TWI is an example of a dual language program type) have decades of research to support their use specifically because they yield the best long-term learning outcomes for children who are learning English. This includes their long-term academic performance in English. There are a wide range of studies from across the US and globally that show students in dual language programs eventually outperform their matched peers who have been enrolled in traditional English only or English dominant language programs. Because of this, dual language programs, and TWI in particular, are widely recognized as an important tool to narrow achievement gaps.
The issues arise with implementation. First, these learning gains are not seen right away. Children must be enrolled in high-quality programs longitudinally for as long as possible—ideally from K-8, with direct and deliberate linkage to the high school level, to realize their full potential. The long-term learning advantages of these programs start to become evident in middle school. It does appear true that students make initial gains in English if they are placed in English dominant classes from day one, but these gains later reverse. This quote from an article I’ll link below summarizes the key findings: “English-only settings help some ELs acquire English proficiency in the short term, but bilingual education programs [are] the most effective language instruction model for ELs in the long term.” There do appear to be some very compelling advantages to TWI, but the gains are not immediate.
What does this all mean? Your school district needs to be proactive in explaining the model and that there is a long-term commitment needed from families, educators, and the school district to realize the model’s full potential and experience the learning gains for all children. If you are looking at your child’s test scores and language acquisition in 1st grade, and no one is working closely with you to explain the progression of achievement in the program, it will be confusing and even alarming. I am quite sure this is happening across our district, as I have found the explanations of the program and how it works to range from weak to entirely absent. If you look at dual language programs at other districts, they provide easy to read bilingual information on the program, have regular meetings with families, and perform the ongoing, bilingual outreach our district has consistently failed to deliver. Some districts have families sign program contacts where they commit to the program over time. There are many examples of the ways in which our district has failed to explain the program effectively and to consistently engage stakeholders.
There is a long list of other issues in terms of the way District 65 has implemented dual language: slow rollout of middle school expansion (there are districts that did this decades ago, we are behind), consistently treating the TWI program as an afterthought (many examples have been documented in the press and can be easily heard from teachers and parents who have been involved in the program overt time), the latest attack on Bessie Rhodes is perhaps the most egregious example of how the District and School Board continue to fail to understand and implement best practices for dual language education in the District. If you become familiar with the dual language literature, it becomes clear that the Bessie Rhodes wall-to-wall TWI model has MANY advantages, the first and most important being that it allows you to center and capture the long-term learning benefits of the model for emerging multilingual students. Other benefits include overtly declaring parity between Spanish and English, which is really important in a society that continues to minoritize the Spanish language and Hispanic and Latino cultures and backgrounds. The model also allows you to have dedicated administrators with a background in dual language and total alignment of the school mission, which is critical for teachers. The model fosters coherence between the budget, classroom, library, and school community, all of which are all built around bilingual spaces. These are not just my opinions. There is empirical data to back up the importance of these features, and our District and many members of the School Board seem fully prepared to simply ignore the facts (though they are on video loudly proclaiming them back in 2017-18 when they established BR as a TWI school, so we know they know the truth deep down).
In terms of multilingualism in general, there are school districts out there that are BOTH saying—"we need to center our emerging multilingual students and provide them with the very best programs we can, but we will also focus on promoting multilingualism and multiculturalism among all of our students.” Some districts offer a range of language learning opportunities to students while still not compromising or short-changing the students who ethically and legally should have priority for tailored, long-term language services. If the District is using TWI as an excuse for not offering broader language services across the district (and it would unfortunately not surprise me if they are), then they are really missing the point. As long as you can guarantee that the students learning English in your system are having their needs met, there are benefits to promoting language acquisition for all kids in your schools, and there are places making the active choice to do so. Unsurprisingly, it sounds like District 65 is not one of them.
Basically, while I do believe TWI itself is worth defending, I in no way would defend the ways in which District 65 and the School Board have been rolling out the program over time. We now find ourselves in a situation where dual language teachers are in high demand across the country and I question what District 65 is doing besides actively repelling people from wanting to work in this environment. I cannot overstate how grateful I am for the educators in our TWI programs who are making the choice to show up every day and dedicate themselves to the children in their classrooms. They are doing so in a very challenging environment.
The key element you mention is having a board and administration poised to engage the community about these issues.
Unfortunately the Board is disdainful of the public.
You know when would have been a great time to explore these issues as a community? During a superintendent search.
A normal board would have conducted a national search and identified people conversant and experienced in these issues.
Unfortunately the last two superintendent searches were conducted in secret without any information given to the public.
The fact that the Board’s last two hires had no experience running a school district prior to coming here suggests a real dereliction of duty. It is really hard to believe that a community like Evanston couldn’t recruit more talented and experienced administrators.
There are no children here to borrow a book title. There are only tribes. There is the Black tribe, the Latinex tribe, the Asian tribe, the LGBT tribe, the White privileged tribe, the Native American tribe, the nonnative English speaking tribe, the working class tribe and the Kiddos tribe. Tribes vote for their own self interest. If you think another wave of elections will provide quality education for all children you don’t understand tribalism. Evanston is stuck in a forever war of various tribes CHILDREN and their education suffer
I saw on a comment on a local FB page that north Evanston parents are opportunity hoarding by sending their kids to private school. Insert eye roll here.
Please fill me in on how that can possibly be argued, since d65 gets its budget from taxes, not enrollment. If anything, white parents who DON’T send their kids to private schools are opportunity hoarding.
Lolz! Don’t give the Equity Army any ideas! We are already seeing the District rising fees because of the budget hole the board has created.
You could see them tacking on a bunch more fees which would essentially serve as a tuition with exemptions for free and reduced lunch eligible kids.
Richer parents may do the cost/benefit analysis and conclude the value of a private school is worth the marginal cost.
Of course in this scenario it is the middle class parents who suffer: higher fees to send the kids to school and higher property taxes going to support fathers district’s fiscal mismanagement.
I will say, I think the way through this is to do the following:
1. Schedule a 2025 referendum. The 2017 referendum specifically was designed to last until 2024 - it literally says that in the text of the referendum. Ask for the same thing as before which is a 5% PTELL increase in levies. Designate these funds to fill any urgent gaps in capital repairs and operating budgets.
2. Trim administrative costs and demonstrate to the public that you actually give a shit about using public money responsibly. This means no more $10k discounts for Horton late fees or hiring friends or family. Work with media outlets, like me or EN or RT to show you've cleaned up the show.
3. Begin the process to hold conversations with ETHS and the ISBE regarding consolidation. Even if it goes nowhere, the ISBE will pay for an analysis regarding consolidation, budgets, and municipal bond room. Short term this is expensive, but long term can save the taxpayers money.
4. Treat the Fifth Ward School as an asset replacement for Kingsley (it is 3 blocks away!!). Close Kingsley and work with the city to redevelop the land and deal with the dangerous crossing there at McCormick and Green Bay. Move those students to Lincolnwood or Fifth Ward school. Enrollment is low everywhere, so just let the families and staff pick.
5. Keep Bessie Rhodes open. Long term, there are a lot of migrants who are arriving or going to arrive in Evanston. Those kids are going to be very expensive to educate - having a District wide approach to them is financially and technically impossible, regardless of Sergio's dreams. Use BR as both a welcoming place and also as an optimized way to help those kids. You don't want to have a building that is just migrants only, so allowing non-EL families to join is *good* and fosters a diverse environment. I think it is a benefit that there are a lot of white people in Evanston who want their kids to have a bilingual education - use it as an asset to help EL families.
6. Bother our high ranking US House Representative for federal money, especially with respect to Bessie Rhodes and TWI education. Schakowsky has a lot of power in the US House and the ability to make things happen. We re-elect her every 2 years for free!
If a 2025 referendum fails, I think you have political support to close whatever schools you want. If the referendum passes, you've patch the hole and have a little more wiggle room.
For the love of all things holy, DO NOT VOTE YES ON THEIR REFERENDUM. Not until the house is cleaned and the new regime shows they are slashing and burning to prove fiscal attentiveness.
Agreed! And not just a new regime on the board end but new administrators too. The current administration is leftover from Dr. Horton and his vision. It's time for change.
Tom has great vision and knowledge, but it’s going to take more than one person to change things. We need to organize a full slate of candidates to rein in mismanagement. My question is does anyone care enough to do this ??
Is anyone aware of anyone who is planning on running or seriously considering running for a board seat next year (not asking to name names)? Given the stream of bad news this year, I would hope more people who weren't aware of some the issues in D65 now are, and that there is some real opportunity for change. I'm afraid no one will want to step up, given some of the mud prior losing candidates were drug through in 2023 and 2021.
I think you need to flip Step 1 and Step 2. There is NO WAY I would ever think about voting for a referendum in 2025 with this board in place. Maybe if we get a full slate of reform-minded candidates to beat Soo, Joey, Biz, and Donna. There is a rumor that some of these people aren't going to run again.
But I think we saw from the last election that the only real reform candidate (Martin) lost.
I don't see a slate of four independent reformers winning.
Until that happens the board isn't going to demonstrate what they need to in Step 2. Clearly every single member of the board now is uninterested in financial prudence.
One of the things that is completely lost in the debate over closing Bessie Rhodes is this:
There are BR parents who look at some of the data points that the Board throws around as justification for closing BR (enrollment, replacement cost, amount of repair costs, etc, etc.), and they look at that and say with some justification, "why us and not some other school that is worse on those metrics?"
And the truth is, that there will be other schools on the chopping block - just not today. Closing BR allows them to take the money that they are paying BR staff now and use that to pay staff in the new building - it might not be a 1:1 match, but an offset.
Past that, they still need to come up with the money year after year for the next 18 years to pay for the lease certificates, and that has to come out of operating funds, so closing additional buildings is a necessity, setting aside the issue of the enrollment losses since the start of the pandemic and the Horton Administration. That doesn't even touch the issue of the repairs and upgrades needed for existing buildings which also need to be paid for.
The bottom line is that things are going to be paid for with teacher and staff jobs and school closures. In my opinion, the Board is doing huge disservice to everyone by not having these discussions openly and having them done piecemeal, but I guess that there is a limit as to how many groups of upset families can yell at the Board at one time.
Which is why I would contend that SAP is really a facade of community involvement. If you went to the playground of a school that is on the chopping block (say Kingsley - your idea!) and asked the parent of a second grader whether they knew that there was a SAP 2 or SAP 3 committee which was charged with making recommendations about closing their school, I am willing to bet that you would get blank stares.
What should be done are real, genuine town halls where the District explains what the issues are, how we here, and what the options are, and answers real questions and takes honest feedback. Closing schools is nothing but painful - for the staff, for that local community and people need to be treated in an above-board manner, which clearly hasn't happened with the BR families. There is so much focus on the cost overruns for the new building but the school-within-a-school concept was abandoned a month before the overruns were made public.
I’m not sure why Kingsley couldn’t be turned into the Tom Hayden Charter School of Jazz. It’s just an idea. Opportunity it hoarding is some leftist crap people in Evanston hurl in order to insinuate that white people are racist and to avoid having real conversations based in fact and reality. I believe BR should remain for the reasons stated here but if Kingsley is low in enrollment, why can’t BR be moved as a school within a school there? I bet a lot of families would decide to join the TWI program if it were offered. Seems like there are a lot of ideas that could be pitched, this Board just doesn’t want to spend one more minute in front of the public than it has to because they know they suck. There exists a fundraising pipeline for anyone who is interested in running for the Board. I think, based on comments even the RT is publishing, that the public is starting to see the light. There doesn’t need to be so much fear of running any longer.
That's definitely an option the could consider - close down and sell the existing BR building and move the K-5 TWI program to Kingsley. The only reason they wouldn't do this, though, is because it's so close to the new fifth ward school that they might as well not do TWI in the fifth ward school - which is probably a deal breaker for the Board.
I thought they were going to move Park School to Kingsley as that building is a complete toxic disaster to fix.
I haven’t seen anything formal on that
I like the Tom Hayden school of Jazz idea too! Barring that, combining Kingsley and Bessie Rhodes makes a lot of sense. Speaking as a Bessie Rhodes parent I know our community is quite aware of the financial difficulties of the district. We're open to solutions that keep our community intact and we're not wedded to the physical building. We're just looking for a solution and a home rather than being scattered to the four winds and deprived of the language emphasis and inclusivity that make our current school a special place.
That seems like a reasonable idea? Move BR to Kingsley, give Kingsley parents the option to do Fifth ward school, Orrington, or Linconlwood. It's not like any of the schools are bursting at the seams.
OR they can just convert all walkable schools to Tom Hayden School of Jazz' and we can become a much cooler city.
I don't think they'd outright give those families the full optionality of "choosing" a school vs. being a little more lenient around attendance waivers in the years following the SAP3 recommended map going into effect. But don't you think there's concern that if you put BR in at Kingsley, it would dent the 5th ward school attendance enough to be a bad look? They have to want that school to look pretty full, right?
Yup, I think that's right. They care a lot more about the optics of this new school than they should...
Regarding FN1, Tom, I’ll be curious to see if any other readers will chime in that have kids that are differently abled; differentiated learners. What I’ve seen over the course of time is the following: two districts who hardly ever do, outright, what the law requires them to do when it comes to this cohort of students. Not until lawyers are brought in to threaten or actually take action. And who does that ultimately truly hurt? The families that don’t have the means to take that necessary step. It’s the opposite of the equity both districts bend over backwards to claim that they’re an embodiment of…..it’s so warped.
I’ve heard that the largest budget item for 202 is legal fees. And you can only image the cost of not doing the right thing in the first place —if the student wins, the district has to pay all of their own attorneys fees plus those of the plaintiff, etc. —this is on top of all the additional supports required by law including, where appropriate, outplacement (and transportation there & back —which can include driving services, etc). It’s nuts. Perhaps a topic of another story(it’s). How these families & their kids are treated is shameful. It’s why people know not to stay in Evanston if their kids end up needing more.
You have to threaten legal action to get the district to pay attention. I wish my child's IEP was opportunity hoarding, I would give anything to have him not need it. D65 will do anything to give the absolute least amount of services.
I’m so sorry. This is a story waiting to be told. Far too many kids/families mishandled & mistreated.
This is going to sound depressing, but this is a nationwide problem and Evanston at least has things like CASE. Much much worse in other places around the US
Maybe. But for school districts that bathe themselves in caring for/prioritizing the minoritized and marginalized, it is hardly walking the walk. IMHO.
Tom,
As one of the participants on the original SAP committee, I want to correct the misimpression that the SAP committee decided to build a school in the 5th Ward. That decision had already been made by the District when SAP was formed. You can see from the memo you cited that one of the charges to the committee was to determine how to open a 5th Ward school in a fiscally responsible manner.
Wow interesting - so you guys said one thing and the board heard another thing (which sounds totally on brand for this board)?
Interesting article about migrant children being put in segregated schools in CPS without language supports that's relevant to your points and to a previous comment about the benefits of TWI if implemented correctly: https://www.chalkbeat.org/chicago/2024/05/21/migrant-students-lack-bilingual-support-in-segregated-schools/
Yes exactly!!! You don't want to segregate them in their own buildings but if you have a bunch of parents that want bilingual education for their kids going the other way (english-to-spanish) its a win-win for everyone. I don't know why the board can't see this.
I almost threw my computer against the wall when I saw the odious platitudes "opportunity hording" and "equity-forward lens" in a single headline!
I am trying to bridge the gap here…
As long as you don't "tone police" your readers!
This might sound harsh but the best thing for the non-English speaking kids is to be in an exclusively English speaking environment with supports. Personal experience - 9 year old sister was talking like a native after 6 months. Her 13 year old sister took a little longer. But if we want these kids to succeed long term, English mastery is priority #1. And the non-Spanish speaking families who want emersion, there are apps for this 😀
Not harsh to share your own experience at all. These conversations are good to have.
Svetlana is right. I guarantee you that every English-only speaking parent who sends their kid to TWI would, if they moved to a different country, put their child in a regular classroom so they could learn the new language very quickly. Even the Spanish-speaking parents here in Evanston lean towards that approach since I know that TWI has, at least in the past, desperately recruited more Spanish-speaking kids to balance out the large number of English-speaking kids who apply. The TWI program is a feel-good program that’s beloved by English-only parents who think the tiny class sizes are good (not always the case) and are thrilled to avoid paying for extracurricular Spanish lessons. The only benefit I see is for parents who don’t speak English who can easily communicate with their children’s TWI teachers. it would be a lot less expensive to hire full-time Spanish interpreters for every school than it would be to keep this tiny, struggling school open. And the district should start Spanish language instruction in early elementary school - not seventh grade - so everyone can benefit from learning another language. The TWI program shields D65 from criticism for not doing so.
This is true. We have kids in TWI and I know several Spanish-speaking parents who have pulled their kids out of TWI and into the English classroom as they begin to understand the implications of the program and they get more confident about navigating the bureaucracy.
As you said, the District pushes Spanish kids into TWI and parents often don't realize possible choices. This is especially the case with newer immigrants. In fact, all of the Spanish-speaking parents I know who have pulled their kids from TWI are recent immigrants who think it is silly and that their kids should be learning English.
The "guarantee" that you mention is also spot on. We spent last summer in a Spanish speaking country and brought along one of the cousins in addition to our TWI kids. The cousin didn't have any Spanish while our kids were TWI but we enrolled them all in a local school while we were there.
All instruction was in Spanish. The cousin struggled for a couple weeks, but by the end of the summer she was as good with Spanish as our kids who had been in TWI for 3-4 years. To your point about starting language instruction for everyone at an early age, this school was giving their kids a unit in English a couple of times a week. We found that these kids were actually pretty good at English even though it wasn't an immersion experience.
Our main beef with TWI is that it is a real crapshoot with getting a decent teacher. I am not sure if this is just a TWI thing, but we have seen a ton of turnover at our school of TWI teachers and we have had a couple who had never been in a classroom before.
Thank you to everyone sharing your feedback and experiences. I believe we may be confusing the dual language and TWI program models with the history and present ways in which District 65 has been implementing these programs.
The models themselves, and TWI in particular (dual language is an umbrella term, and TWI is an example of a dual language program type) have decades of research to support their use specifically because they yield the best long-term learning outcomes for children who are learning English. This includes their long-term academic performance in English. There are a wide range of studies from across the US and globally that show students in dual language programs eventually outperform their matched peers who have been enrolled in traditional English only or English dominant language programs. Because of this, dual language programs, and TWI in particular, are widely recognized as an important tool to narrow achievement gaps.
The issues arise with implementation. First, these learning gains are not seen right away. Children must be enrolled in high-quality programs longitudinally for as long as possible—ideally from K-8, with direct and deliberate linkage to the high school level, to realize their full potential. The long-term learning advantages of these programs start to become evident in middle school. It does appear true that students make initial gains in English if they are placed in English dominant classes from day one, but these gains later reverse. This quote from an article I’ll link below summarizes the key findings: “English-only settings help some ELs acquire English proficiency in the short term, but bilingual education programs [are] the most effective language instruction model for ELs in the long term.” There do appear to be some very compelling advantages to TWI, but the gains are not immediate.
What does this all mean? Your school district needs to be proactive in explaining the model and that there is a long-term commitment needed from families, educators, and the school district to realize the model’s full potential and experience the learning gains for all children. If you are looking at your child’s test scores and language acquisition in 1st grade, and no one is working closely with you to explain the progression of achievement in the program, it will be confusing and even alarming. I am quite sure this is happening across our district, as I have found the explanations of the program and how it works to range from weak to entirely absent. If you look at dual language programs at other districts, they provide easy to read bilingual information on the program, have regular meetings with families, and perform the ongoing, bilingual outreach our district has consistently failed to deliver. Some districts have families sign program contacts where they commit to the program over time. There are many examples of the ways in which our district has failed to explain the program effectively and to consistently engage stakeholders.
There is a long list of other issues in terms of the way District 65 has implemented dual language: slow rollout of middle school expansion (there are districts that did this decades ago, we are behind), consistently treating the TWI program as an afterthought (many examples have been documented in the press and can be easily heard from teachers and parents who have been involved in the program overt time), the latest attack on Bessie Rhodes is perhaps the most egregious example of how the District and School Board continue to fail to understand and implement best practices for dual language education in the District. If you become familiar with the dual language literature, it becomes clear that the Bessie Rhodes wall-to-wall TWI model has MANY advantages, the first and most important being that it allows you to center and capture the long-term learning benefits of the model for emerging multilingual students. Other benefits include overtly declaring parity between Spanish and English, which is really important in a society that continues to minoritize the Spanish language and Hispanic and Latino cultures and backgrounds. The model also allows you to have dedicated administrators with a background in dual language and total alignment of the school mission, which is critical for teachers. The model fosters coherence between the budget, classroom, library, and school community, all of which are all built around bilingual spaces. These are not just my opinions. There is empirical data to back up the importance of these features, and our District and many members of the School Board seem fully prepared to simply ignore the facts (though they are on video loudly proclaiming them back in 2017-18 when they established BR as a TWI school, so we know they know the truth deep down).
In terms of multilingualism in general, there are school districts out there that are BOTH saying—"we need to center our emerging multilingual students and provide them with the very best programs we can, but we will also focus on promoting multilingualism and multiculturalism among all of our students.” Some districts offer a range of language learning opportunities to students while still not compromising or short-changing the students who ethically and legally should have priority for tailored, long-term language services. If the District is using TWI as an excuse for not offering broader language services across the district (and it would unfortunately not surprise me if they are), then they are really missing the point. As long as you can guarantee that the students learning English in your system are having their needs met, there are benefits to promoting language acquisition for all kids in your schools, and there are places making the active choice to do so. Unsurprisingly, it sounds like District 65 is not one of them.
Basically, while I do believe TWI itself is worth defending, I in no way would defend the ways in which District 65 and the School Board have been rolling out the program over time. We now find ourselves in a situation where dual language teachers are in high demand across the country and I question what District 65 is doing besides actively repelling people from wanting to work in this environment. I cannot overstate how grateful I am for the educators in our TWI programs who are making the choice to show up every day and dedicate themselves to the children in their classrooms. They are doing so in a very challenging environment.
Article:
https://tcf.org/content/report/ensuring-equitable-access-to-dual-language-immersion-programs-supporting-english-learners-emerging-bilingualism/
The key element you mention is having a board and administration poised to engage the community about these issues.
Unfortunately the Board is disdainful of the public.
You know when would have been a great time to explore these issues as a community? During a superintendent search.
A normal board would have conducted a national search and identified people conversant and experienced in these issues.
Unfortunately the last two superintendent searches were conducted in secret without any information given to the public.
The fact that the Board’s last two hires had no experience running a school district prior to coming here suggests a real dereliction of duty. It is really hard to believe that a community like Evanston couldn’t recruit more talented and experienced administrators.
Not sure it's a matter of couldn't vs. didn't.
There are no children here to borrow a book title. There are only tribes. There is the Black tribe, the Latinex tribe, the Asian tribe, the LGBT tribe, the White privileged tribe, the Native American tribe, the nonnative English speaking tribe, the working class tribe and the Kiddos tribe. Tribes vote for their own self interest. If you think another wave of elections will provide quality education for all children you don’t understand tribalism. Evanston is stuck in a forever war of various tribes CHILDREN and their education suffer
I saw on a comment on a local FB page that north Evanston parents are opportunity hoarding by sending their kids to private school. Insert eye roll here.
There's still spots in some of the private schools!
Please fill me in on how that can possibly be argued, since d65 gets its budget from taxes, not enrollment. If anything, white parents who DON’T send their kids to private schools are opportunity hoarding.
Too many conversations around equity ideas in this town focus on owning your enemies, instead of helping actual human beings
Lolz! Don’t give the Equity Army any ideas! We are already seeing the District rising fees because of the budget hole the board has created.
You could see them tacking on a bunch more fees which would essentially serve as a tuition with exemptions for free and reduced lunch eligible kids.
Richer parents may do the cost/benefit analysis and conclude the value of a private school is worth the marginal cost.
Of course in this scenario it is the middle class parents who suffer: higher fees to send the kids to school and higher property taxes going to support fathers district’s fiscal mismanagement.
They are going to have to close 2-3 schools. My bet is bessie rhodes, kingsley and orrington.
I will say, I think the way through this is to do the following:
1. Schedule a 2025 referendum. The 2017 referendum specifically was designed to last until 2024 - it literally says that in the text of the referendum. Ask for the same thing as before which is a 5% PTELL increase in levies. Designate these funds to fill any urgent gaps in capital repairs and operating budgets.
2. Trim administrative costs and demonstrate to the public that you actually give a shit about using public money responsibly. This means no more $10k discounts for Horton late fees or hiring friends or family. Work with media outlets, like me or EN or RT to show you've cleaned up the show.
3. Begin the process to hold conversations with ETHS and the ISBE regarding consolidation. Even if it goes nowhere, the ISBE will pay for an analysis regarding consolidation, budgets, and municipal bond room. Short term this is expensive, but long term can save the taxpayers money.
4. Treat the Fifth Ward School as an asset replacement for Kingsley (it is 3 blocks away!!). Close Kingsley and work with the city to redevelop the land and deal with the dangerous crossing there at McCormick and Green Bay. Move those students to Lincolnwood or Fifth Ward school. Enrollment is low everywhere, so just let the families and staff pick.
5. Keep Bessie Rhodes open. Long term, there are a lot of migrants who are arriving or going to arrive in Evanston. Those kids are going to be very expensive to educate - having a District wide approach to them is financially and technically impossible, regardless of Sergio's dreams. Use BR as both a welcoming place and also as an optimized way to help those kids. You don't want to have a building that is just migrants only, so allowing non-EL families to join is *good* and fosters a diverse environment. I think it is a benefit that there are a lot of white people in Evanston who want their kids to have a bilingual education - use it as an asset to help EL families.
6. Bother our high ranking US House Representative for federal money, especially with respect to Bessie Rhodes and TWI education. Schakowsky has a lot of power in the US House and the ability to make things happen. We re-elect her every 2 years for free!
If a 2025 referendum fails, I think you have political support to close whatever schools you want. If the referendum passes, you've patch the hole and have a little more wiggle room.
For the love of all things holy, DO NOT VOTE YES ON THEIR REFERENDUM. Not until the house is cleaned and the new regime shows they are slashing and burning to prove fiscal attentiveness.
Agree!!
Agreed! And not just a new regime on the board end but new administrators too. The current administration is leftover from Dr. Horton and his vision. It's time for change.
That's kind of happening on its own right now...
Wow - you really should run for board please!
Tom has great vision and knowledge, but it’s going to take more than one person to change things. We need to organize a full slate of candidates to rein in mismanagement. My question is does anyone care enough to do this ??
Is anyone aware of anyone who is planning on running or seriously considering running for a board seat next year (not asking to name names)? Given the stream of bad news this year, I would hope more people who weren't aware of some the issues in D65 now are, and that there is some real opportunity for change. I'm afraid no one will want to step up, given some of the mud prior losing candidates were drug through in 2023 and 2021.
I don't know anything on this front, but I won't be running for School Board anytime soon. I am much more effective in this role here.
I think you need to flip Step 1 and Step 2. There is NO WAY I would ever think about voting for a referendum in 2025 with this board in place. Maybe if we get a full slate of reform-minded candidates to beat Soo, Joey, Biz, and Donna. There is a rumor that some of these people aren't going to run again.
But I think we saw from the last election that the only real reform candidate (Martin) lost.
I don't see a slate of four independent reformers winning.
Until that happens the board isn't going to demonstrate what they need to in Step 2. Clearly every single member of the board now is uninterested in financial prudence.
So then we just keep holding them accountable via media, like this blog!
One of the things that is completely lost in the debate over closing Bessie Rhodes is this:
There are BR parents who look at some of the data points that the Board throws around as justification for closing BR (enrollment, replacement cost, amount of repair costs, etc, etc.), and they look at that and say with some justification, "why us and not some other school that is worse on those metrics?"
And the truth is, that there will be other schools on the chopping block - just not today. Closing BR allows them to take the money that they are paying BR staff now and use that to pay staff in the new building - it might not be a 1:1 match, but an offset.
Past that, they still need to come up with the money year after year for the next 18 years to pay for the lease certificates, and that has to come out of operating funds, so closing additional buildings is a necessity, setting aside the issue of the enrollment losses since the start of the pandemic and the Horton Administration. That doesn't even touch the issue of the repairs and upgrades needed for existing buildings which also need to be paid for.
The bottom line is that things are going to be paid for with teacher and staff jobs and school closures. In my opinion, the Board is doing huge disservice to everyone by not having these discussions openly and having them done piecemeal, but I guess that there is a limit as to how many groups of upset families can yell at the Board at one time.
Or punting the hard conversations to the SAP committee instead of having those conversations themselves…
Which is why I would contend that SAP is really a facade of community involvement. If you went to the playground of a school that is on the chopping block (say Kingsley - your idea!) and asked the parent of a second grader whether they knew that there was a SAP 2 or SAP 3 committee which was charged with making recommendations about closing their school, I am willing to bet that you would get blank stares.
What should be done are real, genuine town halls where the District explains what the issues are, how we here, and what the options are, and answers real questions and takes honest feedback. Closing schools is nothing but painful - for the staff, for that local community and people need to be treated in an above-board manner, which clearly hasn't happened with the BR families. There is so much focus on the cost overruns for the new building but the school-within-a-school concept was abandoned a month before the overruns were made public.
Finally, at the end of the last footnote, Tom tells us which school he would recommend closing.
I buried the lede, I guess!
Scroll up to an earlier comment I left with someone where I describe the Tom Hayden SAP committee plan.