District 65 Strategic Planning Committee Considers Fifth Ward School, Additional Goals

By Larry Gavin

At its July 9 meeting, School District 65's Strategic Planning Committee grappled with some key issues that have vexed the community for many years, including whether the District should establish a new school in the Fifth Ward and whether the District should allocate additional resources to schools with concentrations of low-income students.

After almost three hours of debate, the Committee decided it will not recommend that the District establish a new school in the Fifth Ward, but that the District study the issue in the context of an overall study of the District's facilities. A proposal to allocate additional resources to schools based on need fell for lack of support.

The Committee made progress in prioritizing goals in three areas: staff and instructional support; community outreach; and facilities and finances. The Committee ran out of time, however, to reach agreement on three overarching goals and a vision for the District, which will put the process of developing a first draft of a five-year strategic plan behind schedule.

So far, the Committee has held six lengthy meetings. The Committee consists of 40 persons: five central office administrators; seven principals or vice-principals; 11 teachers; all seven School Board members; nine parents; and one member of the business community.

A Fifth Ward School
Members of the Committee had put establishing a new school in the Fifth Ward on the table during brainstorming sessions in earlier meetings. The Fifth Ward, which includes the area south of the canal and west of Green Bay Road, has historically been predominantly African-American.

The Fifth Ward's school, Foster School, was closed as a neighborhood school in 1967 as part of the District's desegregation plan. Since that time many African-American students in the Fifth Ward have been bused to schools in north Evanston, in part to racially balance those schools. (See sidebar.)

Jerome Summers, a member of the School Board and the Committee, said, "We've had hundreds of kids bused out of the Fifth Ward for decades. ... The Fifth Ward is the only community in the City that does not have an educational legacy. ... I've seen the devastation of a community where kids who live across the street from each other are bused to different schools. Schools build communities. It would be appropriate to establish a school in the Fifth Ward."

Another committee member said one of the core values approved by the Committee was the opportunity for every child to attend a neighborhood school. "If we value it, we should strive for it and make plans to try to find a way to make it work.... That community needs a school."

"I would like us to address the lack of a school in the Fifth Ward," Jessica Clarke, a Committee member and parent, said. "It's the right thing to do."

The Committee's facilitator, Bill Attea, said, "I think desire and reality need to be balanced. ...What I don't want is to put something in the strategic plan that can't be achieved."

Mr. Attea said a new school would cost between $25 million and $35 million and that, under state law, a new school would need to be approved in a referendum by persons residing in the District. He said if the committee decided to move ahead with this as a goal, it should determine where the school would be located, what it would cost, and analyze the benefits and constraints of establishing the school. The committee should then convince the Board to place the question on the ballot as a referendum question, and then educate the community. He said extensive planning would be needed for a referendum.

Superintendent Hardy Murphy said, "I have a concern we don't rehash the same issues." He said the Board looked at establishing a school for about 250 students in the Fifth Ward as part of the last strategic plan, and it decided not to move ahead with the project because of financial concerns. "We're still facing substantial budget deficits," Dr. Murphy said.

He added that the District also did an analysis of the impact busing had on student achievement and found there was no material difference in academic achievement for students who were bused and those who were not bused.
"If this is important, then let's say we're going to get it done," Dr. Murphy said. "If we can't, let's not do it."

Katie Bailey said if the District opened a new school, it might have to close another school. She added that if the District built a new school it should consider establishing a "green" school.

Andrew Pigozzi said if the District established a new school it would have to consider the possibility of redistricting. He added that when the District conducts a study of its facilities (which is a Committee goal), it may determine it will be more feasible to tear down a school and build a new one in the Fifth Ward than to rehab an existing school.

Dr. Murphy said that some persons who had expressed concerns about establishing a school in the Fifth Ward said it would result in resegregating schools in the District. Dr. Murphy added, though, "Many communities would opt for a neighborhood school rather than a desegregated school."

Tracy Wallace said, "I was an advocate for the Fifth Ward School for ten years. The demographics have changed. The bottom line is if we could build a school for 250 kids, it doesn't serve all the kids [in the Fifth Ward]. The Fifth Ward will support it. Black people will support it. But the community won't support it."

Mr. Summers challenged the assumption that the community would not support a new school in the Fifth Ward. He acknowledged, though, that demographics in the Fifth Ward were changing and that white and Hispanic students were moving into the ward. He also said, "I'm facing the fact that 20 years from now, there may be no black kids in the Fifth ward. But a school should still be in the community."

Dr. Murphy suggested the District conduct a comprehensive survey to determine how much resistance there would be to a Fifth Ward school. "Let's find out if the community wants it first," he said.

Bonnie Lockhart said "a comprehensive survey of the District may be a good thing." She suggested it could cover other topics as well, such as whether to establish community learning centers.

Anna Marie Anderson, a parent on the Committee, said, "I think it's very important for that community to have a school. What can we do to help that community? Even if it's not a Fifth Ward school, what can we do for that community? What are the options? I feel we're leaving them behind."

The Committee decided by a wide margin to address the issue of a Fifth Ward school in the strategic plan. There was not enough support, though, to recommend establishing a new school there. Instead the Committee decided by a hand vote to recommend that the issue be analyzed as part of an overall study of the District's facilities.

Allocation of Resources
Ms. Clarke suggested that the strategic plan include as a goal: "Allocate resources to schools based on the needs of their children to ensure that all third-graders are reading above grade level and that every child has the literacy skills needed for high school."

She said, "This would ensure that kids who are falling behind get the resources they need."

Dr. Murphy said if more resources were allocated to certain schools, they should be allocated based on Title I status, where there is a concentration of low-income students. He said if the District could prioritize the allocation of resources, "It would allow us to make class-size reductions in schools where there's a need. We could try to prioritize the teaching conditions at Title I schools first."

Dr. Murphy said the District currently receives about $900,000 in Title I funds that are used to address the needs of low-income students at Title I schools.

One teacher said the District allocates reading specialists and other support services to address the needs of students who need assistance.

In a vote by a show of hands, about four or five Committee members voted to include the proposal to allocate resources based on need in the draft strategic plan, and four or five voted against it. About 15 Committee members did not vote. The proposal was not included in the list of goals.

The Goal Topics/Next steps
The strategic plan will include goals for six areas or "strands": curriculum; instruction; student and family support; staff and instructional support; community outreach and services; and facilities and finances. The Committee decided on general goal "topics" for the first three strands on June 25, and it modified some of those at its July 8 meeting. The Committee approved goal topics for the remaining three strands at its July 8 meeting.

The goal topics are listed in the accompanying sidebar.

The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for Sept. 13. At that time the Committee will consider a vision statement which will outline what the Committee would like the District to look like in ten years.

The Committee will also consider three overarching goals for the District to achieve in the next five years.

It is unclear whether the District will approve a draft strategic plan at its Sept. 13 meeting or at a subsequent meeting. The Committee will hold a series of public hearings to obtain input from administrators, teachers and parents and community members after the draft report is prepared.

Goal Topics Approved by the Strategic Planning Committee

The School District 65 Planning Committee has approved the following goal topics for the areas, or "strands," indicated. These may be revised and fleshed out in the draft strategic plan:

Curriculum: 1) Ensure that students graduating from the District have the necessary literacy skills to be successful in high school and adult life; 2) Determine the developmental and educational needs of pre-kindergarten-aged children in the community, assess the resources in the community for meeting these needs, and determine the District's role in ensuring that these needs are met for all children, in cooperation with their parents and community resources; 3) Provide elementary-grade students an opportunity to be introduced to a world language other than English.

Instruction: 1) Successfully implement a program of differentiated instruction and enrichment that will address the needs of each individual student; 2) Implement technology-mediated instruction through the District; 3) Successfully implement Response to Intervention (RTI) throughout the District to monitor and assist students experiencing difficulty in reaching the District's goals for instruction; 4) Ensure the integration and inclusion of students with disabilities in all programs, as appropriate.

Student and Family Support: 1) Create a welcoming climate in each school that engages parents more extensively in the education of their children; 2) Effectively implement Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Program (PBIS) in the schools to improve student behavior and reduce suspensions; 3) Evaluate the health services required to meet the needs of the student body across the District and to develop a plan for addressing these needs within the District's responsibility and resources.

Staff and Instructional Support: 1) Recruit and retain a highly competent and diverse staff; 2) Provide flexible use of resources and provide time in the day for professional collaboration, planning and instruction.

Community Outreach and Services: 1) Develop stronger relationships with School District 202, Northwestern University and the school community; 2) Obtain regular feedback from the community.

Facilities and Financing: 1) Conduct a District-wide facility study, which will include a study of a Fifth Ward school, the middle schools' science labs and green facilities; 2) Ensure financial solvency of the District.

The Closing of Foster School

As part of the District's desegregation plan implemented in 1967, Foster School (which was 99 percent African-American and located at Foster Street and Dewey Avenue in the Fifth Ward) was closed as an attendance-area school and converted into a magnet school to draw white students from throughout the District and thereby desegregate the school. About 400 black students who had attended Foster school were reassigned and bused to predominantly white schools throughout the District to desegregate those schools. About 400 white students who applied for the magnet program were bused to Foster School to desegregate that school.

In the latter part of the 1970s, the District closed seven schools in light of declining enrollment; the attendance areas of many schools in the District were redrawn to adjust for the school closings and to maintain racial balance. One of the seven schools was Foster School; the magnet program at Foster was transferred to Skiles Middle School, now King Lab School.

The other six schools that were closed were College Hill, Miller, Noyes, Kingsley (which reopened in about 1990), Central, and Timber Ridge (which reopened as a magnet school in about 2003 and is now called Bessie Rhodes).

The District has considered whether to reestablish a school in the Fifth Ward on several prior occasions. In 2002, the District's Long Range Planning Committee recommended that if the District established a new school, that it do so in the Fifth Ward west of Green Bay Road.

In 2002 the School Board adopted a Strategic Plan which set as a goal that the District, "Review the desirability and feasibility of establishing a school in the Fifth Ward." In late 2002, the administration proposed that the District establish a school for 240 students at Weisbourd Holmes Family Focus Building (the old Foster School building). The administration projected the District could make necessary renovations of the building for $1.7 million, that it could lease the space for $1 a year, and that the cost of utilities and custodial and security staff would be about $100,000 per year. On Feb. 16, 2003, six members of the School Board said they could not support a Fifth Ward school because of the District's financial condition. At that time the District was projecting deficits of $40 million over the next six years.

FROM JUNE 16, 2003 ROUNDTABLE

History Of The 60% Guideline and Other Measures Used by District 65 to Racially Balance the Schools

In 2002, the District 65 School Board adopted a five year strategic plan, one goal of which is to evaluate the 60 percent guideline used to racially balance the schools. The guideline provides that no defined racial group shall exceed 60 percent of a school population. This article summarizes the guidelines District 65 has used to racially balance the schools since 1966.

By Larry Gavin

Since adopting a desegregation plan in 1966, School District 65 has used three guidelines in determining how to racially balance its schools: "reasonable integration" in the 1960s; a State-mandated 15 percent plus-or-minus rule in the 1970s; and the 60 percent guideline since 1985.

The District's Strategic Planning Advisory Committee recently recommended that the District review whether to retain the 60 percent guideline.

1960s - "Reasonable Integration"
Under the 1966 desegregation plan, Foster School, which was 99% black, was converted into a magnet school that offered innovative educational programs designed to attract white students to the school and desegregate it. All of the children who attended Foster School and 59 percent of the children who attended Dewey School, which was 66% black, were assigned to other schools in the District. About 450 black children who had previously attended Foster and Dewey schools were bused to schools on the District's periphery.

"Some of us felt that by integrating the schools we could make all of the schools equitable in terms of educational opportunity and improve the quality of education." -- former School Board member Alice Kreiman

In terms of racially balancing the schools, then-Superintendent Gregory Coffin said in a 1966 memo that a Citizens' Advisory Committee used the following principle: "Racial balance - efforts will be made to achieve reasonable integration in all schools." Efforts to achieve racial balance were counterbalanced by other considerations, which included maintaining the neighborhood school concept for the maximum number of students and minimizing pupil displacement.

The desegregation plan did not achieve perfect racial balance. At that time, black students comprised 22% of the students in the District. Boundary changes were made so the projected black enrollment at each school would range from 17 to 25 % of the school's population.

One reason to desegregate the schools was the view that it would enhance educational opportunities for black children. A report prepared by the Educational Testing Service said black third- and eighth-graders scored on average at the 27th and 39th percentile ranks nationally in reading and math in 1967.

1970s - "15% Plus-or-Minus"
In the mid-1970s, a declining student enrollment and projected financial deficits led to discussions about school closings and the first major redistricting of attendance areas since the desegregation plan was implemented in 1967. In a 1975 memo to the School Board, then- Superintendent Joseph E. Hill also noted that there was "growing racial imbalance in some of our schools' minority populations, ranging from 14% to 55%." At that time, black students comprised about 30% of the District's students.

School District 65 applied a racial balancing rule adopted by the State Board of Education when it redrew attendance areas after school closings in 1976 (College Hill, Miller and Noyes schools) and in 1979 (Timber Ridge, Central, Kingsley and Foster schools). One criterion adopted by the District 65 Board provided "that the racial ratio prescribed for schools by the State Superintendent of Instruction is to be met."

The State Board's rule provided that racial segregation would exist if "the minority racial composition of the pupils in any attendance center fails to reflect, within 15 percentage points, the minority racial composition of the pupils in all attendance centers under a given school authority." The State Board adopted this rule to enforce the Armstrong Act, an Act which amended the Illinois School Code and which requires school boards to change or revise attendance areas from time to time "in a manner which will take into consideration the prevention of segregation and the elimination of separation of children in public schools because of color, race or nationality."

Thus, racial segregation was defined under State law in terms of a 15 % plus-or-minus formula. If a school district was composed of 40% minority students, then the minority enrollment at each school in the district was required to be between 25% and 55% to comply with the State Board's rule.

After District 65 redrew attendance areas in 1979, the percentage of black students ranged from a low of 30% at Willard school to a high of 55% at Washington school. At that time, black students comprised 40% of the District's enrollment.

Alice Kreiman, who served on the District 65 Board for six years and was president of the Board in 1979, told the RoundTable that the State Board's 15 percent-plus-or-minus rule was not questioned during redistricting "because it was State mandated and consistent with the Board's intent to integrate the schools."

Historically, Foster School was treated as the stepchild of the District and had fewer resources than other District 65 schools she said. "Some of us felt that by integrating the schools we could make all of the schools equitable in terms of educational opportunity and improve the quality of education. We felt that integration could achieve that end and that this was the energy of the times as well.

"Racially balancing the schools also gave white and black children an opportunity to be exposed to each other's cultures and lives," she added. "It makes for a broader base of appreciation for differences and values."

Ms. Kreiman also alluded to the segregated housing patterns in the City and to the contentious School Board election in 1970, which many felt was a referendum on whether to retain Superintendent Coffin, who was spearheading efforts to integrate the schools, the teaching staff and the curriculum in a vigorous manner. The pro-Coffin slate lost in a close election in which 26,000 votes were cast, compared to the usual 3,000 votes. Ms. Kreiman said, "The feeling of many of us was that racially balancing the schools was a mechanism for open housing and a larger attitudinal change for the community."

Rev. John Norwood, a Board member at the time, told the RoundTable that he originally fought for the integration of District 65's schools in the 1960s, but that his position shifted by the late 1970s. He said, "Due to the housing patterns in Evanston, it was impossible to racially balance the schools' populations without moving students out of their neighborhoods... . All of the shifting to meet a quota did more damage than help. Academically, it was not worth it. After schools let out, there was no interaction planned to improve the relationship." He added that his position then and now is that "the seating of a body in a location does not do anything for the head."

1980s - The 60% Guideline
The District did not face redistricting again until early 1985. At that time, the District projected that Dewey, Walker and Washington schools would be short classroom space for the 1985 - 1986 school year and that Orrington would be short classroom space in the following year. The District also recognized that a number of schools were not racially balanced: King Lab, Lincolnwood, Orrington, Willard, Haven and Nichols were 60% to 66% white; Dawes and Oakton were 63% and 67% black. The racial composition of District 65 at the time was 52% white, 45% black and 4% other ethnic groups.

Thus, Superintendent Robert P. Campbell proposed alternatives to address the space needs and said in a memo to the Board, "The administration has also used this opportunity to make adjustments in the racial quotas of some schools."

"All of the shifting to meet a quota did more damage than help. Academically, it was not worth it. After schools let out, there was no interaction planned to improve the relationship." -- former School Board member Rev. John Norwood

When the District considered redistricting in 1985, the State Board's 15% plus-or-minus racial balancing rule was no longer in effect. The Illinois Supreme Court struck down the rule in 1982, holding that the State Board lacked authority to promulgate mandatory rules under the Armstrong Act. The Court concluded that "the legislature has charged the local districts with the responsibility of enforcing the Armstrong Act. Consequently, promulgating rules relative thereto should be the duty of the local school boards."

After its mandatory rule was struck down, the State Board adopted a voluntary guideline which suggested that school districts establish criteria to define desegregated schools. The State Board suggested, "One approach which has been used effectively in both voluntary and court-ordered plans is to establish a limit, such as 10% or 15%, for the extent to which minority enrollment at individual schools may differ from the minority enrollment of the district as a whole."

Before considering alternatives to resolving space needs and racial balance in 1985, the District 65 School Board decided on a list of criteria which could be used to evaluate the alternatives. On February 25, 1985, the Board adopted a criterion that provided "racial ratios should be considered while arriving at solutions to space problems," rejecting a more flexible proposal that "racial ratios should be kept in mind but should not be the determining factor in arriving at a solution to a space problem." The Board also agreed that one criterion would be "the variance in racial balance between the schools should be minimized."

According to the Board's minutes discussion centered around what was meant by "minimized." Sources report that one Board member favored using the 15 percent plus-or-minus guideline. Another questioned whether the Board should establish a percentage but expressed concern that some schools were approaching the point where they would be "racially identifiable."

At the March 18, 1985, meeting, Board member Chuck Staley presented the criterion "no defined racial group shall exceed 60% of a school population." The minutes reflect that the criterion was accepted by consensus after extensive discussion.

In a guest essay on page 9, Mr. Staley says "there was nothing particularly magic about 60/40; it was chosen because considering the District's population, it was achievable without increasing busing or re-drawing the District's school boundary lines."

"There was nothing particularly magic about 60/40; it was chosen, because, considering the District's population, it was achievable without increasing busing or redrawing the District's school boundary lines." -- Former School Board member Charles Staley

Mr. Staley states that an underlying premise was the belief that "an integrated school system was central to the well being of all our students." He explains, "We had made a determination that all students, and particularly the minority students who had historically been deprived of the resources necessary for achieving a quality education, would prosper to a higher level in an integrated system. Each group would bring its positive and negative aspects to the centers of learning and through a sharing and cooperative effort, all groups would benefit."

Walter Kihm, a Board member at the time, told the RoundTable that there were a number of schools close to the 60% threshold at that time and he felt that a 60% racial guideline would not be that much of a leap. He did not think the State Board's guideline was a significant factor in the decision, because District 65 had its own commitment to integrating the schools.

Since 1985, the District has attempted to relieve overcrowding and to racially balance the schools through a variety of measures: redrawing attendance areas of Dawes and Walker schools in 1985 to shift additional black students to Walker School; establishing the math/science corridor in 1987 in an attempt to attract white students to attend schools in southern Evanston; redrawing the attendance areas of Lincoln and Oakton schools in 1990 to shift white students to Oakton and black students to Lincoln; redrawing attendance areas when Kingsley School was reopened in 1991.

Some of these changes, as well as other changes proposed from time to time, spawned controversy. In 1990 the Board appointed a racially mixed Long Range Planning Committee composed of 30 community members to propose a long range plan to racially balance the District's schools. The LRPC considered numerous models used in school districts throughout the country, including pairing schools, clustering schools, school choice and additional magnets.

In its May 1992 report, the LRPC recommended that the District adopt a comprehensive plan to improve minority achievement and proposed a model to racially balance the schools, a primary element of which was redistricting, backed up with a choice concept.

In its report, the LRPC supported the 60% guideline, stating, "The goal of this school system is to have student achievement and the perception of excellence consistently and uniformly high. To this end, students must learn social and academic skills. As the diverse nature of the Evanston/Skokie community is an integral part of the learning environment, the committee views it as essential that the community's children learn in a desegregated atmosphere. Therefore, the proper model for desegregation is that no racially identifiable group shall exceed 60% of the student population of any school."

The Board did not adopt the LRPC's desegregation model, but after a number of controversial proposals were considered, adopted and vacated, the Board decided to establish Timber Ridge as a second magnet school and implement a recruitment campaign to attract black students from Oakton School to the magnet schools. Because the District monitors race in admitting students to the magnet schools and in granting permissive transfers between schools, a second magnet school increased the District's ability to racially balance the schools.

Over the years, the District has also located bilingual and special education programs at certain schools to relieve overcrowding and to draw students of a particular race to those schools and achieve racial balance.

Many children have been bused to school in District 65 since the 1960s. While busing was originated to relieve overcrowding at Foster and Dewey schools and then to implement a desegregation plan, busing is provided today for an interrelated set of reasons, including safety, distance, racially balancing the schools and providing access to certain programs such as special services and bilingual education.

In the 2001-02 school year, 1,024 black students, 790 white students and 367 other students were bused. Excluding students bused to magnet schools and schools with special programs, 635 black students, 416 white students and 65 other students were bused to school.

According to District figures, about 400 black children in the Fifth Ward - the area surrounding the old Foster School - attended Willard, Lincolnwood, Kingsley or Orrington schools last year, schools located in predominantly white neighborhoods. Of these children, 200 were bused to school.

60% Guideline Questioned
In late 2000, the District appointed a Strategic Planning Advisory Committee to assist in developing a long-term strategic plan for the District. After holding four forums to gather community input, the Committee identified eight challenges, one of which concerned the 60 percent guideline. The Committee's report said, "The 60 percent guideline currently dominates the organization of the schools and programs in District 65. The Board needs to determine if this guideline improves the educational results for all children in the District and whether or not it should continue. The busing of African-American and Hispanic students for integration purposes and the lack of a school in the Fifth Ward deny many students the benefits of a neighborhood school."

When the Committee presented its recommendations to the Board, co-chair Terri Shepard, said, "The Community wants to know if the original purpose of the guideline has been met." Co-chair Tracey Wallace said, "The disproportionate burden that busing places on African American and Hispanic children to meet the guideline may adversely affect their education."

While many minority students have excelled in District 65, on the 2002 ISATs, 51% of the District's black students and 46% of the District's Hispanic students failed to meet State standards. On the 2000 Stanford Achievement Test, black students in fourth and eighth grade scored on average at the 41st and 44th percentile ranks nationally in reading and math.

Committee member Judith Treadway said, "There was a premise that if we integrated the schools, that if we brought black students into white schools, this would be better opportunity for them to be educated. The issue for us to discuss, based on all of the valid research that this District has generated, is whether or not the 60 percent guideline has improved academic achievement of African American students."

At present [2002], all of the District's schools are within the 60% guideline.

FROM JUNE 19, 2002 ROUNDTABLE

A History of Foster School and Desegregation in District 65

By Larry Gavin

In 1960, there were approximately 11,000 students in the District's schools, 22% of whom were African American. At that time, most of the District's elementary schools were segregated. The percentage of African American students at Foster school was 99%, at Dewey school ­ 66%, at Noyes and Central schools ­ 33%, and at Haven, Miller and Washington schools ­ 5% to 10%. Few or no African American students attended the District's nine other elementary schools. The four junior high schools were closer to being racially balanced, with African Americans comprising about 15%-25% of their student bodies.

School District 65 attendance areas in 1965.
Overcrowding at Foster and Dewey schools led to desegregating some of the District's schools in the early 1960's. In September 1963, the School Board authorized a voluntary transfer program to relieve over crowding at Foster and Dewey schools. By 1966, 450 African American students were bused on a voluntary basis to eight previously all white schools under this program.

Under pressure from local groups, the School Board adopted a resolution of intent in December 1964 to desegregate and racially balance the District's schools. Two years later, the Board adopted a formal desegregation plan.

District 65's Strategic Plan On June 17, the District 65 School Board adopted a five-year strategic plan, which was summarized in the June 3 issue of the RoundTable. Two goals in the plan are to evaluate the 60 percent guideline used to racially balance the schools and to review the desirability and feasibility of establishing a school in the Fifth Ward. During the community forums held last year and at School Board meetings, a number of leaders in the African American community have said that integration has not improved minority achievement, that minorities bear a disproportionate burden of busing, and that children in the Fifth Ward lack the benefits of a neighborhood school. The Board plans to seek community input on these issues and to decide separately whether to retain the 60 percent guideline and then whether to establish a school in the Fifth Ward. The RoundTable will present a series of articles on these issues. This issue gives a thumbnail history of the District's desegregation plan and school closings to provide a historical perspective.

Under the plan, Foster School was closed as a neighborhood school, becoming instead a laboratory school offering innovative educational programs for grades K-5. The laboratory school, later named the Martin Luther King, Jr. Experimental Laboratory School, was open to the entire District and was designed as a magnet ­ a carrot ­ to draw white children to the school and thereby desegregate it. In its first year, 650 students were accepted at King Lab, 25% of whom were African American children. Students who lived outside the Foster School area were bused to the school at their parents' expense.

As a second part of the desegregation plan, all of the District's school attendance areas were redrawn so that the enrollment of African American children at each school in the District ranged from 17% to 25%. All of the children who had previously attended Foster School and 59% of the children who had previously attended Dewey School were reassigned to new schools. Many of these children were assigned to a new school within walking distance of their home. A substantial portion of the area around Foster school, however, was carved into seven districts and children in those districts were assigned to one of seven schools on the District's periphery as their attendance area school. Approximately 450 African American children were bused to school under this plan at the District's expense.

According to a report "How Evanston, Illinois Integrated All of Its Schools," Jan. 24, 1972, signed by Joseph B. Porter Superintendent, the creation of an innovative educational program to draw white children to Foster school on a voluntary basis and the assignment of African American children to schools on the periphery of the District was not viewed as "totally fair." The report said, however, "we were pragmatic, and to work in this case meant to be acceptable by the Board and the Community."

Before the desegregation plan was implemented, interviews were conducted with the parents of the 450 African American children who were to be bused under the plan. Ninety-two percent responded favorably to the question, "If the cost of integrated education is busing, then I am willing to have my child bused."

According to Spt. Porter's report, this survey was proposed as a compromise to having a community-wide referendum on integrating the schools: "We felt that such a referendum would yield a negative vote, so after a vigorous debate, a compromise was reached." The desegregation plan was implemented in September 1967.

Impact on Achievement
In March 1968, the Rockefeller Foundation gave District 65 funds to conduct a three-year study to determine the effects of its desegregation plan. The research was conducted jointly by District 65 and the Educational Testing Service. An extensive report, issued in August 1971, concluded in part, "after desegregating all elementary schools, white pupils' performance in standardized achievement tests remained constant. Black pupils have made slightly greater gains in most subject areas. Busing did not adversely affect black or white pupils...."

The report also reflected that in the Fall of 1967, African American third and eighth graders scored on average at the 27th and 39th percentile ranks nationally in reading and mathematics. White third and eighth graders scored on average at the 64th and 76th percentile ranks in those subjects.

The average test scores have improved for both groups since 1967, but a wide gap in achievement levels persists. In the 2000 Stanford Achievement Tests, African American fourth and eighth graders scored on average at the 41st and 44th percentile ranks nationally in reading and mathematics. White fourth and eighth graders scored at the 86th and 88th percentile ranks in those subjects.

On the 2001 Illinois Standard Achievement Test, 9 percent of Asian and white students, 52 percent of African American students and 46 percent of Hispanic students did not meet State standards.

School Closings and Redistricting in the 1970s
Student enrollment dropped from 10,860 students in 1967 to 8,413 in 1976 and 7,061 in 1979. Closing schools and simultaneously redrawing attendance areas in order to avoid overcrowding and maintain racial balance in the schools was a major challenge.

In September, 1976, the District implemented a plan under which College Hill, Miller, and Noyes Schools were closed, and Kingsley School was opened. In addition, Skiles Middle School was closed as an attendance area school and turned into a magnet school serving grades 6-8.

The District approved a second school closing plan in early 1979. Under this plan, the Board decided to close Timber Ridge, Central and Kingsley schools and to transfer the King Lab School program to join the laboratory school program for grades 6-8 which had been started at Skiles Middle school, now known as King Lab.

During the debate, Beverly Coker and Bennett Johnson on behalf of a group called Coalition for Dignity in Evanston and Hecky Powell on behalf of the Coordinating Council of Community Organizations urged that the old Foster School building be used as an attendance area school. Ms. Coker suggested that the entire Willard student body be bused to Foster School for racial balance.

On January 30, 1979, the Board asked Superintendent Joseph Hill to analyze two alternative configurations of schools to serve the northern part of Evanston, under which Foster school would be reestablished as an attendance area school and either Willard or Orrington school (in addition to Kingsley) closed down. It would still have been necessary to bus a substantial number of students under these alternatives, but the proportion of African American versus white students being bused would have changed substantially. Closing down Willard or Orrington school would have necessitated redrawing attendance areas and shifting many students to new schools, an exercise not required if Foster school were closed down because Foster school had not been used as an attendance area school since 1967.

At a February 5, 1979 Board meeting, the Board decided by a five to two vote not to use Foster School as an attendance area school, and the District subsequently sold the building. The Foster school building, now called the Weissbourd-Holmes Family Focus building, is currently owned by Family Focus and used by Family Focus and other non-profit groups.

Going forward, the District is projecting a drop in enrollment from 6,783 students this year to 6,455 students in 2006. Dr. Judith Levinson, Director of Research, Planning and Development for District 65, projects the District will have 53 excess classrooms by 2006.

The 60% Guideline and Redistricting in 1985
In 1985, the School Board adopted as a building use criterion that "no defined racial group shall exceed 60% of a school population."

Since that time, the District has attempted to racially balance the schools by redrawing attendance areas, by establishing Timber Ridge as a second magnet school in the mid-1990s, and by monitoring race in admitting students to the magnet schools and in granting permissive transfers between schools. Over the years, the District has also located bilingual and other programs in certain schools to draw students of a particular race to those schools and achieve racial balance.

In the 2001-02 school year, all schools in the District were within the 60 percent guideline. According to Enrollment Projections prepared by Dr. Levinson on February 4, 2002, all schools will remain within the guideline through 2006.

Busing
Many children have been bused to school in District 65 since the 1960s. While busing was originated to relieve overcrowding at Foster and Dewey schools and then to implement a desegregation plan, busing is provided today for an interrelated set of reasons, including to racially balance schools, to provide transportation across major roads for student safety, and to provide transportation for special education students.

In 1979, 651 African American students and 828 other students were bused to school. Excluding students bused to King Lab, 413 African American students and 321 other students were bused because of distance.

In December 2001, 1,024 African American students, 790 white students and 367 other students were bused to school. Excluding students bused to magnet schools and to schools with special programs, 635 African American students, 416 white students and 65 other students were being bused to school.

A substantial number of students in the old Foster school area are bused to Kingsley, Lincolnwood, Orrington and Willard schools, which are located in predominantly white neighborhoods.

Sources for this story include the following: A report entitled "Integration in Evanston, 1967-71: A Longitudinal Evaluation", Aug. 1971; a book entitled The District 65 Story, chapter I, "Responding to Changes in the Community/Society"; a paper entitled "How Evanston, Illinois, Integrated All of Its Schools", Jan. 24, 1972; a report entitled "A Long Range Plan For Achieving And Maintaining Quality Integrated Education in Evanston/Skokie District 65", May 5, 1992.

District 65's 60 Percent Guideline

Guest Essay By Charles Staley, Former District 65 Board Member

In the mid-80s the District 65 School Board, of which I was a member, was struggling with many of the same issues which face the current Board. At that time we were nearly 20 years into Evanston's voluntary school integration plan. We were witnessing improvements in the test scores of minority students, but the improvement was not proceeding rapidly enough to satisfy us.

Although I was not actively involved in the school system when the voluntary integration plan was introduced, from my years on the Board and time spent studying the problems and achievements of District 65, I believe that the motivation was noble and worthy of praise. The District was moving from a period of separate and unequal to a new era of equal education for all.

While trying to achieve an excellent equal education for all of our students, we had to address the basic issues of the District. One of these issues was how to maintain an integrated school system that all students and their parents would support. We had made a determination that all students, and particularly the minority students who had historically been deprived of the resources necessary for achieving a quality education, would prosper to a higher level in an integrated system. Each group would bring its positive and negative aspects to the centers of learning and through a sharing and cooperative effort, all groups would benefit. While this was a bit utopian, there were positive results of which we can all be proud.

Since we believed that an integrated school system was central to the well being of all of our students, it was necessary to take steps to integrate the system and keep it integrated. School boundaries were drawn and re-drawn. Busing routes were established and changed. The situation was made more difficult by a declining enrollment which necessitated numerous school closings.

It was proving to be difficult to maintain an integrated school population at Oakton and Dawes Schools. In 1985, the population at Oakton was approximately 67 percent minority, which at that time was primarily African American, and 33 percent white. Dawes was approximately 63 percent minority and 37 percent white. Each year the percentage of minority students had been increasing and the percentage of white students had been decreasing.

This was due in part to a change in demographics in Southwest Evanston and in part to an increasing trend of parents of white children electing to send their children to parochial and other private schools. The Board had addressed this issue for several years but had not been able to reach a consensus on the approach which would be the best for the District and its students.

With that background, at a Board meeting in 1985, after a lengthy discussion about how to address the possibility that Oakton School might rapidly achieve a nearly segregated status in our integrated District, I made a motion that the District adopt a guideline that no defined racial or ethnic group would be permitted to exceed 60 percent of a school's population without the Board interceding to take steps to return the population as nearly as reasonably possible to the 60/40 status.

My recollection is that there was nothing particularly magic about 60/40; it was chosen because considering the District's population, it was achievable without increasing busing or re-drawing the District's school boundary lines. The motion passed after considerable additional discussion. I do not recall whether the vote was unanimous, but I do not recall any strenuous objections.

Twenty years later, I still believe that one of the main reasons for living in Evanston is to bring up your children and yourself in a diverse, real environment. This cannot be achieved in a school system that is not integrated throughout all of its schools. While in the short run it may seem expedient to back away from the goal of achieving a quality, integrated education for all in order to satisfy the legitimate concerns of various sectors of our community, in the long run the only true hope for all of us is to learn to prosper together to achieve our goals.

This can only be accomplished in a school system that is integrated throughout all of its schools.

ETHS "No Credit" Policy to Change

By Jennie Berkson

Students at Evanston Township High School who miss more than eight class periods in one course may now receive a grade of F for the course rather than the No Credit (NC) status previously given to students exceeding the acceptable number of absences without a legitimate reason.

"(This) adjustment to the NC rule ... will eliminate a loophole that has allowed students to avoid going to a class they chose but do not have an interest in attending," Associate Principal Bruce Romain reported to the District 202 School Board on July 14. "Some students stop attending class when they fall behind in work or attendance. Some students use the NC to avoid receiving an F on their transcript, even though (based on the work they did for the class) they failed the course."

According to the new policy, students who have more than eight absences in a class and who are receiving a failing grade will get an F for the class, which will appear on their transcript. Students who have more than eight absences in a class but who have managed to do enough work to receive a passing grade will be given an NC, as in the past, which means they will not receive credit for the course, even though they had earned a passing grade.

Students who exceed eight absences in a class can have their case reviewed by the Attendance Review Committee. Mr. Romain said "documented medical issues, homelessness and hospitalizations" are some of the "compelling circumstances" which would enable a student to receive credit for a course despite having missed more than the allowable number. The eight-absence limit is consistent with the Illinois School Code, said Mr. Romain.

"What options do students have to drop a class?" asked Board member Mary Wilkerson. "What if a student gets in a class, doesn't like it, or they can't do the work?"

"A student has until the 11th week of the semester to drop a class," said Mr. Romain. "The problem is with a student who has the minimum number of classes. We require them to take six, and if dropping the class would drop them to five, we would usually keep that student in the class. But we would also look at if the student has been placed appropriately. We would also talk to the teacher about the effort being made by the student."

Associate Principal Dr. Richard Bowers provided the Board with some recent statistics on the number of NCs and how many of them would have been converted to Fs had the new policy been in place the second semester of the 2007-08 school year.

Dr. Bowers said 212 students received at least one NC during the time period. That represents approximately 7 percent of the students at ETHS. Of the 212 receiving NCs, 65 were freshman, 55 were sophomores, 74 were juniors and 18 were seniors. Dr. Bowers further explained that a large number of the students receiving NCs also were failing the class: 144, or 68 percent.

Dr. Bowers also reported that there were slightly more male students (116) than female students (96) who received at least one NC, although the number of male and female students at ETHS is almost exactly the same. Among those receiving at least one NC were 127 black students (60 percent) and 44 Hispanic students (22 percent). These figures exceed the percentages of students of color at the school: According to the ETHS website, the school is 36 percent black and 11 percent Hispanic.

"When students do not attend class," Mr. Romain explained, "it becomes a detriment to the student's academic success. It also enables some students seeking free time instead of attending class, which may result in behavioral issues in the school. Lastly, our academic integrity . . . becomes compromised when a student is allowed to stop attending a class they are failing and receive no academic consequence."

Major Renovations Underway On Wildkits' Lazier Field

By David Hertz

Lazier Field is undergoing renovations to make way for an artificial playing surface and lights. The first "Friday night lights" game is scheduled for Sept. 12.

Returfing and other renovations are taking place at Evanston Township High School's Lazier Field. The overhaul on the football field is scheduled for completion by mid-August.

Nearly a foot of the soil on top of the field has been taken out and replaced by a mixture of concrete and stone, over which the artificial turf will be placed, Athletic Director Chris Livatino said.

"The purpose and goal was really to provide our kids with the smoothest, safest field possible and the chance to play in any weather conditions," Mr. Livatino said.

Other changes include the addition of lights for Friday night games. The first game under the lights is planned for the Wildkits' opening home game, Sept. 12.

"We're really excited," Mr. Livatino said. "It's really become the norm across Illinois, and our kids deserve the chance to play in the same exciting format."

The environmental impact of the renovations was considered as well. Rain water running off the artificial turf will be collected in rain barrels and used to irrigate other nearby playing fields, said Director of Operations Steve Grbavac. Dirt removed from Lazier Field to make way for the artificial turf will be put to use in regrading the other fields.

The renovations are part of a $4.2 million contract approved by the District 202 School Board to renovate several of the ETHS athletic fields. The costs of the renovations to Lazier Field itself will be about $1.15 million, said Mr. Grbavac.

The administration hopes the upgrades will save them money in the long run. While the maintenance of a traditional grass field costs between $45,000 and $55,000 per year, Mr. Livatino said, the artificial turf field will cost only about $5,000 a year to maintain. Grass fields require much upkeep, but the only major procedure performed on artificial fields is called grooming, "essentially running a large vacuum cleaner over the turf," Mr. Livatino said.

When renovations are finished, the field will be fitted as a common field and shared among non-football youth sports on Saturdays and Sundays when the football team is not playing or practicing. AYSO, Junior Wildkits and Evanston Youth Lacrosse will all be able to use the field, Mr. Livatino said.

The field was renamed after former ETHS football coach Murney Lazier last year. "Now we're going to have the best field to honor the best coach," Mr. Livatino said.

D202 Board Extends Dr. Witherspoon's Contract

The District 202 School Board decided last month to extend Superintendent Eric Witherspoon's contract by two years. With the extension, Dr. Witherspoon's tenure at Evanston Township High School will extend to June 30, 2013.

Dr. Witherspoon has served as ETHS' superintendent for two years. In his tenure he has overseen the implementation of the "System of Supports" program, which mandates morning study time for struggling students and provides study centers in each core subject area for all students; and he has recommended revisions to the freshman humanities program in order to increase the number of minority students in honors level classes.

"It has been a total pleasure to work with Dr. Witherspoon," Martha Burns, president of the District 202 School Board, told the RoundTable.

"In the two years he has been here he has transformed the whole school. The administrative team is working together. He is very inclusive with the teachers.

"The System of Supports helps all kids," she said. It just doesn't target kids of color. It doesn't just target white kids. It targets all kids., Ms. Burns said.

Ms. Burns added that the changes in the humanities program hold a lot of promise. "ETHS has been segregated in many ways in how students were placed," she said. "It is significant for him to make these changes in this community. ...I like the way he's bringing us all together to make us one school. People are working really well together now," she said.

The Board approved a 4 percent salary increase, which will bring his salary to $215,800 this year, and agreed to increase the retirement annuity paid on his behalf from $31,125 last year to $38,884 this year, Bill Stafford, chief financial office for the District, told the RoundTable. The District also pays contributions on his behalf to the Illinois Teachers' Retirement System.