Evanston/Skokie, IL district sees 57% increase in SPED costs over 4 yrs; SPED 30% of school budget
Beginning about four years ago, Evanston/Skokie School District 65 made significant changes to its continuum of services for students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The changes had significant financial implications. Between the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years, the district increased special education spending from $30.1 million to $47.4 million — an increase of $17.3 million, or 57% — bringing special education expenses to about 30% of total operating costs.
Yet, there was no significant improvement in student achievement.
The spending increases not only impacted the budgets for the 2022-23 and the 2023-24 school years, but they have a significant impact going forward. Under federal Maintenance of Effort (MOE) regulations, the district may not lower expenditures for special education services from one year to the next, unless an exception applies. If the district does not meet the MOE regulations, the district risks losing federal funding for special education.
In early 2025, District 65 retained WestEd, a nonprofit research firm, to conduct a study of the district’s special education program, and WestEd submitted a 52-page report in November 2025.
WestEd concluded that the district’s special education program did not improve student achievement, that the district should consider expanding its continuum of services to help meet the needs of students, and that the district’s special education director should meet with the financial director on a regular basis to discuss the budget and anticipated increases in spending. WestEd’s report contains numerous other findings and recommendations about ways to reduce costs and to improve the provision of special services to students with an IEP.*
District 65 administrators prepared a three-year plan to address the recommendations made by WestEd, and they presented their plan at a Jan. 26 school board meeting. While the district’s plan generally describes actions the district says it plans to take and generally says “what success will look like,” there are no concrete metrics to measure progress or success.
In a research paper cited by WestEd in its report, the researchers said, “Given the magnitude of spending on special education services and all that is at stake for these children, it is important that we gain a better understanding of what these [successful school] districts are doing that might inform others.” . . .
The district’s expenditures have gone up by 57% in a two-year period. There should be accountability to deliver significantly better student outcomes.
A. Inclusion and the continuity of services
The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires school districts to provide services to students with a disability in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their needs. Among other things, school districts must prepare an Individualized Education Program for each student with a disability, and maintain a “continuum of services” to meet each student’s needs.
1. Full inclusion in 2009
In 2009, the District 65 school board approved an “Inclusion Plan,” under which students with an IEP were integrated into general education classrooms. The plan was implemented on a phased-in basis, starting with pre-K and kindergarten, then expanding to upper grades.
In 2010, a group of parents whose children had significant disabilities thought the pendulum had swung too far. They said that the district was attempting to place all students with a disability into a general education classroom, rather than maintaining a continuum of services and placing students with significant disabilities in a setting that best meets their needs.
A federal judge agreed with the parents in a 53-page decision rendered in August 2013. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Durkin said, “When the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily, then mainstreaming is not appropriate.” Durkin also said, “To accommodate children with more severe disabilities, school districts are ultimately required to ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services.”
About a year later, at an April 28, 2014 board meeting, Joyce Bartz, then director of special services for District 65, presented a proposal to increase the options for students who had significant needs and disabilities, and to increase the continuum of services that would be available to them.
She proposed adding five special education classrooms, two for the middle schools, and three for the K-5 schools. The classrooms were designed to provide a “more highly structured program” for students than could be provided to them in the general education classroom.
By May 2020, there were nine self-contained specialized classrooms located at nine schools. These classrooms were in addition to what is called the Structural Teaching Education Program (STEP) then located at Lincoln and Nichols, and the Rigorous Individualized Specialized Education (RISE) program at King Arts. . . . .
A second change was that the district began to place a greater emphasis on educating students with an IEP in general education classrooms for more than 80% of the day.
By May 2024, DeCristofaro reported that 75% of the students with a disability were being educated in the general education classrooms for more than 80% of the day, up from 57% of the students in May 2020.
WestEd described the changes as follows: Over the past five years, the district decided “to eliminate the cross-categorical classrooms … and to focus on inclusion and co-teaching within the district, which consequently changed the continuum of service options available within the district. In addition to co-taught classrooms, resource support services are using a ‘pull-out’ design. There are specialized classrooms and programs within the district to address a wide range of students’ needs.” The four specialized programs/classrooms mentioned are:
Rice Children’s Center, a therapeutic day program, supporting 21 students in two classes
Park School, which supports students, ages 3 to 22, with more significant developmental, physical, and medical needs, serving about 55 students at.
STEP, a self-contained program, located at Lincoln, Washington, Lincolnwood and Nichols and
RISE, self-contained classrooms, designed to serve students with moderate to significant disabilities, needing special education instruction for more than 50% of the school day, located at King Arts.
The district also places students who need more intensive services in out-of-district schools. . . .
B. Special Education Expenditures and MOE
The district’s spending on special education has increased significantly in the last four years, seemingly without pre planning. Under MOE regulations, the district is limited in its ability to reduce the latest level of funding if it wishes to keep federal funding for special education.
1. Spending jumped by 57% in two years
Each year, school districts are required to report to ISBE the expenses they incurred in providing special education services. School districts are required to do so in an annual financial report, using a format required by ISBE, which shows the district’s expenses for special education by function. These reports must be certified by each school district’s auditor.
In addition to its annual financial reports, District 65 also has a Maintenance of Effort worksheet which lists its expenditures for special education services by seven functions: instruction, psychologists, speech pathology, special area administrative services, transportation, payments to other governmental units, and transportation. The table below reflects District 65’s expenses for special education, by function, using a combination of the annual financial reports prepared by the district (available for all five years), a District 65 MOE worksheet (available only for the first four years), and an ISBE Claim Review form for the last year. The table was prepared by Larry Gavin.
The table reflects that the district’s special education expenses jumped from a total of $30.1 million in the 2021-22 school year to $37.5 million in the 2022-23 school year, an increase of $7.4 million.
The expenses then jumped from $37.5 million in the 2022-23 school year to $47.4 million in the 2023-24 school year, an increase of $9.9 million. The increases are illustrated in the chart below.
WestEd notes that these increases were not due to an increase in the number of students with an IEP. **
These two increases in 2022-23 and 2023-24 were not included in the district’s operating budgets that were approved by the school board for those years. Their expenses contributed to two surprise operating deficits of $9.8 million in 2022-23 and then $10.3 million in 2023-24.
The magnitude of the total increase, coupled with a failure to include the big increases in the budgets approved by the board, suggests there was a lack of communication and perhaps a failure to plan the rollout of the changes made in the provision of special education services in an efficient and effective manner.
The magnitude of these increases is important for several reasons. First, expenses for special education now account for about 30% of the district’s total operating expenses. And this percentage does not include an allocation of the salaries/benefits of general education teachers or general administrators, or the cost of building maintenance. . . .
WestEd recommends: “To more accurately identify and respond to the needs of the special education students, the district and school teams should consider establishing a cycle of data-based decision-making,” including a “review of core instruction, access to services, IEP progress, and early-warning indicators; interpret pattens and equity gaps; and translate findings into time-bound action steps with owners and follow-up checks.”
WestEd also noted concerns about the district’s implementation of the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), which is not specific to special education, but “the framework supports all students and, when implemented well, can help reduce special education referrals as students are supported with interventions within the general education framework.”
WestEd summarized staff concerns about MTSS: “Streamlining and improving data systems throughout the district was a theme throughout the survey including pre-referral intervention activities. There were concerns about inconsistent implementation across the district from school site to school site, as well as a general perception that MTSS is not functioning affectively as a cohesive system, leading to increased requests for special education referrals.” . . .
The data below shows the number of students placed in out-of-district schools for the school years indicated:
2021-22 60
2022-23 82
2023-24 86
2024-25 82
2025-26 67 . . .
Footnotes
*WestEd is a San Francisco-based nonprofit organization. The organization’s mission states, “WestEd, a research, development and services agency, works with education and other communities to promote excellence, achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults.
** The percentage of students attending District 65 who have an IEP increased from 13.5% in 2021 to 18.1% in 2025. There was, however, not a significant increase in the number of students with an IEP because total student enrollment declined during that period.
In 2025, according to ISBE’s report card for District 65, 7.9% of the district’s students who had an IEP had autism; 22.4% had a development disability; 6.7% had an emotional disturbance; 1.3% had an intellectual disability; 27.3% had a specific learning disability; 12.9% had another health impairment; and 18.8% had a speech and language Impairment.
Comments