If nobody knows, we shouldn’t close

11/3/2025

On behalf of the Legion of Data Nerds, we write as one voice urging this Board to use evidence-informed decision-making to build a thriving future for our community, our schools, and our children.

As applied scientists, we bring collective multidisciplinary expertise spanning over 200 years in data analysis and research methodology. We want to offer solutions and provide clarity, starting with articulating our concerns around how modeling method choices during this process have predetermined the results.

We’ve put together this website as a resource for our efforts. We’ll continue to contribute here to find solutions in a transparent and collaborative way. Our most recent post is a recap of a conversation that Jean Clipperton had with Dr. Stacy Beardsley and Kirby Callam.

Models Shape Mindsets

A model will optimize for what the builder tells it to. It is possible to have sound analysis with a model pointing in the wrong direction. The district’s models point us toward maximizing school utilization. While related, this is not the same target as financial stability. Driving toward max school utilization sidelines finances and cuts out asking what is best for our community and our children—including applying scrutiny to administrative staff and buildings.

Statistician George Box said, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” The way the scorecard models were built—from the initial baseless 95% utilization target to the scorecard design and capacity definitions—has limited what outcomes were even possible from the start. These tools, though well-intentioned, influence not only our answers but the range of questions we can even ask.

The data model and scorecard design embed biases that ultimately represent “efficiency” and equate “efficiency” with “success.” This isn’t equity analysis—it’s efficiency analysis wearing an equity label. The model lacks the sensitivity to respond appropriately to different scenarios and appears rigid in ways that suggest it’s serving as a proxy for predetermined conclusions about school size rather than illuminating genuine tradeoffs.

While there are methodological issues, we want to emphasize that they do not invalidate the community or committee input. The underlying values are still there and incredibly important. The problem lies in how those values were translated into data that, by design, can’t capture the complete picture.

Unless we recognize these built-in biases, the Board risks making decisions based on the model’s assumptions rather than the district’s real needs.

Data Integrity and Educational Impact

We need to ensure the data guiding our closure discussions is setting up the district for the future. Right now, it isn’t. As it currently stands, we’re underestimating enrollment and overestimating school capacity, which will result in large class sizes and/or unexpected transportation costs. This is crucial to get right, as large class size is the one factor most strongly linked to lower student performance, especially in early grades. This impact is even greater for students receiving special education services.

D65’s enrollment projections do not include any students from the 5th Ward choosing to finish their K-5 outside of Foster. They also don’t include the estimated 7% growth in the Lincolnwood and Kingsley areas by 2034, the potential of students returning to D65 from private school, or changes to city demographics via Envision Evanston. Any of these factors will push enrollment higher than D65 is predicting, resulting in larger-than-expected class sizes and worse learning outcomes in any of the two-closure scenarios. There is also an extreme lack of clarity on which schools students with IEPs will attend for each closure scenario—more time and care are needed to ensure we are supporting each student and their specific needs.

Before we act, we need independent validation of all enrollment, capacity, and transportation models.

Filling the Gaps in Data

The district has been advancing an argument that we must urgently close numerous schools. The Board acknowledges a need for a vision: we need a needs assessment. How do we compare to other districts? What are our goals? You can’t improve what you don’t understand, and you can’t prioritize everything—a needs assessment tells you where to start. It’s a systematic examination of our current reality that reveals specific, actionable insights: which grade levels are struggling with literacy, what professional development teachers actually need, where achievement gaps exist, and how our resources align with our goals.

But we need accurate, comprehensive data to evaluate this hypothesis and the potential costs and benefits that can come from this type of disruption.

The first part of this assessment begins with teachers and families. There is a unique opportunity to gather more robust data to inform these conversations, such as exit survey data from the families who have left D65 in alarmingly large numbers. Within the same pool of families, we see D202’s enrollment remain steady, but D65 has lost a quarter to a third of its student population since 2018.

We urge the Board and the district to slow down and conduct a proper needs assessment that balances education outcomes and student wellbeing with utilization and finances, and define a vision with key performance indicators that we can benchmark our progress against as we move forward.

We, the Legion of Data Nerds, are committed to giving teachers a voice and a seat at the table and are currently exploring conducting our own surveys of teachers as well as parents, using sound methodology.

Combining what we learn from a needs assessment, from closing one school and opening another, from families making choices about which schools to enroll in next year, and from the teachers who know our schools, students, and district best, is critical to charting a path forward together. Without good data and a vision, we cannot make good decisions.

Financial Clarity

We can’t responsibly make closure decisions without a comprehensive forensic audit.

• Savings per school are based on numerous assumptions and are likely $2 million or less, shrinking with each additional closure
• Foster’s $3.2 million under-budget result may push the actual overall deficit closer to $9 million
• The district’s outside consultant admits to overlooking the potential revenue from selling the Bessie Rhodes building
• Administration, which accounts for the largest portion of the operating budget, has increased while enrollment decreased. There is a clear need to right-size administrative costs, but this should not be examined by the district’s own administration—it warrants an independent audit

Meanwhile, closures bring added costs: transportation, crowding, IEP/ADA compliance, and potential lawsuits.

We have many untapped options—like cutting administrative bloat, reducing early-grade tech spending, or leasing JEH—that could help. We need the full picture before taking irreversible steps.

We cannot plan responsibly without a comprehensive audit and transparent numbers.

Make an Informed Decision With Confirmed Data

The solution to the issues of incomplete data is clear: we should use the upcoming school year to fill in the critical missing pieces so that we can make a well-informed decision.

We suggest the district test its assumptions and demonstrate the feasibility of successfully closing Bessie Rhodes while simultaneously opening Foster School. This real-world data will provide the best information to guide the district’s next steps.

After next year:

• The sale of Bessie Rhodes will no longer be an assumption but a confirmed amount
• We will know the exact cost of opening Foster, as well as its true enrollment
• Transportation costs will become clear, which is crucial given their significant impact on the budget
• Moreover, we are already seeing factions forming within our school communities. If the Board fails to follow a transparent and data-driven approach, there is a serious risk of fueling further division.

If nobody knows, we shouldn’t close.

There’s Hope

We’ll continue to crunch the numbers and provide as many financial levers as possible to make ends meet, but we need to acknowledge the image problem that the district faces. The Horton indictment, the structural deficit, botched Bessie Rhodes closure, the threat of having to close up to four additional schools, and declining enrollment from families pulling their children out of the district are all contributing factors.

Closing two schools in the north will leave a large neighborhood without a K-5 school and sow resentment in our district. It’s time to come together as a community.

In the City-School Liaison Committee meeting on 10/30, the mayor, D202, and other city leaders articulated their intent to partner with D65. We have opportunities to find non-closure solutions like co-locating services, leasing space, and right-sizing admin before cutting classrooms. Northwestern’s Center for Talent Development has already indicated interest in renting space from D65 for their summer programming. The possibilities from these collaborations are endless.

You have the opportunity to re-imagine our schools and work in partnership with Evanston’s resource-rich landscape to demonstrate fiscal creativity. You have an opportunity to correct the mistakes that put us in this situation. Let’s right-size the administration so that principals can run their schools and teachers can run their classrooms. Let’s increase transparency and community engagement.

As we look to the future, we all want the opening of Foster School to be a success. This historic opening ushers in a new era for the families of the 5th Ward and deserves to be celebrated. Let’s come together as a community and celebrate the birth of the Foster Phoenix—not only for the success of a new school, but for the rebirth of our district.

We must move forward together, anchored in sound data with the district as our lighthouse.

We are here to help you turn that light back on!

Signatories:

John Brady
John Brady holds a Bachelor Degree in Computer Engineering from Tufts University and has over 15 years of professional experience working with financial data.
john.brady.jr@gmail.com

Scot Campbell
Scot Campbell holds a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and has 21 years of experience working with data at MIT and Airbus.
secampbe@gmail.com

Jean Clipperton
Jean Clipperton holds a PhD from the University of Michigan and has 19 years of professional experience working with data.
jean.clipperton@gmail.com

Jacob Karlin
Jacob Karlin works as a Senior Options Trader and has 17 years of professional experience working with data.
jacob.karlin@gmail.com

Alexis Lauricella
Alexis Lauricella has a PhD in Developmental Psychology and a Masters degree in Public Policy from Georgetown University. She has 20 years of using qualitative and quantitative data to inform policy and industry decisions related to children, learning, and technology.
alexislauricella@gmail.com

Kelly McCabe
Kelly McCabe holds an MSPH in Public Health and Tropical Medicine from Tulane University and has over 20 years of professional experience working with data as an epidemiologist focused on community health research.
mccabekelly322@gmail.com

Erin McCarville
Erin McCarville holds a Doctorate in Public Health from the University of Illinois at Chicago and has over 20 years of experience in the collection, analysis, and use of data for decision-making.
erinemccarville@gmail.com

Lauren McNamara
Lauren McNamara has an MS in Biostatistics from the University of Illinois at Chicago and has 20 years of professional experience working with data.
laurenmcnamara@gmail.com

Katy Paige
Katy Paige has an MBA from the University of Chicago. She is a Financial Economist at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and has 20 years of professional experience in data analysis.
katymacswain@gmail.com

Esteban J. Quiñones
Esteban J. Quiñones holds a Ph.D. in Agricultural and Applied Economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and has 20 years of professional experience working with data in global development for evidence-informed policymaking.
estebanjq@gmail.com

Dan Rey
Dan Rey has a PhD in computational physics from the University of California San Diego and has 20 years of professional experience working with data.
nadrey@gmail.com

Eric Shore
Eric Shore holds a BSE in Computer Science (University of Pennsylvania) and an MBA (UIUC). With 19 years of professional experience in business analytics and data-driven decision-making, he currently serves as Chief Innovation Officer at a technology company.
emshore@gmail.com