Budget Deficit Reduction Plan

What is a budget deficit?

 A budget deficit is a financial shortfall that occurs when spending exceeds revenue for a fiscal year. District 118 ended the 2024-25 fiscal year with a $2.5 million deficit. This deficit propagated to the 2025-26 budget, which was approved by the Board of Education on September 18 and included a $4.2 million deficit in the Operating Funds. 

Why are we in this situation?

After analyzing spending from the 2024-25 Fiscal Year, a number of factors were determined to have contributed to the budget deficit. Significant factors impacting our 2024-25 unaudited expenses exceeding our budget include:

• Substitute Budget

• Staffing Budget

• Out-of-District Tuition Budget

• Out-of-District Transportation Budget

• Lower than anticipated State Revenue

Work has included analyzing factors that impacted our budget performance. These include:

• Basing our budget levels for certain areas on the previous budget instead of the previous year’s actual revenue and expenditures 

• Staffing costs associated with bringing back special education programs were not fully incorporated into the budget

• Adding new positions & expenses that exceeded our funding

• Lower than anticipated State Funding & the end for Federal ESSER COVID Funding

What is the plan?

District 118’s Administrative Team has worked diligently to resolve the budget deficit, balancing fiscal responsibility with the commitment to preserving high-quality educational experiences for our students. The budget changes captured in our Budget Deficit Reduction (BDR) plan will restore a fiscally sound budget for District 118 without a tax increase beyond the limit of the tax cap (5% or CPI, whichever is lower, plus new growth). Read about District 118’s upcoming FY25 Tax Levy to learn more.

Upon learning of the budget deficit, the Board of Education directed the Administrative Team to define and implement BDR plan to restore the district’s sound financial footing. 

The administrative team took immediate action to reduce the 2025-26 budget, which has been reduced by $1.5M. To define required reductions in next year’s budget, our Cabinet has worked diligently to meet the Board’s directive by:

• Soliciting BDR options from our Unions, Administrative Council (District Cabinet & Building Principals), Cabinet Team, Buildings and Grounds, and Transportation, and incorporated into BDR reductions

• Completing five rounds of BDR work with continuous feedback from our administration and Board, which now includes draft changes that generate a $5.1M reduction in the projected 2026-27 Budget that is no longer projected to have a deficit

As promised, our efforts began with a focus on reducing operational costs (and exploring increasing fees), then incorporating administrative/non-union reductions. If our budget deficit could have been solved through those two avenues, we would have done so. With the scope of the budget deficit, the plan also includes reducing and reallocating support staff and instructional staff. Changes also complete a return to traditional class sizes and strategically reduce staffing budgets. 

All course offerings, core and elective programs, athletics, activities, and required supports for students with IEPs and English Learners will continue. Wauconda CUSD 118’s budget mirrors that of most school districts, with roughly 75% of our operating budget going to salaries and benefits. Because nearly 75% of the district’s operating budget is tied to salaries and benefits, balancing the budget cannot be done without affecting staffing. As a result, it is likely that class sizes will increase, and some positions and supports will be reduced, while administrative roles take on additional responsibilities.

Initially, plans included approving a Working Draft of the Budget Deficit Reduction Plan on December 13, 2025. We are grateful for over 400 committed and passionate community members and staff members who joined our November 6, 2025, Board Meeting. Your voices, your passion, and your commitment to our students, teachers, and staff were unmistakable. We have heard our community. 

After hearing from the community and taking time to reflect, the Board of Education and Interim Co-Superintendents will pause before moving forward with the draft Budget Deficit Reduction Plan (BDR). The Board will not vote on the Budget Deficit Reduction Plan at the November 13 meeting. Instead, the plan will be removed from the agenda to allow for more time for discussion and community input.

Next steps include:

• Continuing to listen and refine the BDR plan based on stakeholder input and ideas for improvement.

• Having an independent, external team, scheduled to begin its work the week of November 10, will review how our Business Office manages budgeting, reporting and spending. Once the review is complete, we will share the results with the community and implement any necessary improvements as part of the budget plan.

• Providing a BDR update at the December 4 Board of Education Committee of the Whole Meeting.

• Approving the BDR at the January 15, 2026, Board of Education Business Meeting.

What to Expect: 

Year 1: 

D118 implemented targeted operational reductions and froze contingency staffing plans. Prior to budget approval, the Cabinet team identified and implemented $850k of reductions. Additional reductions to this year's budget that can be implemented will continue to be identified and incorporated throughout the year.

Year 2:

The bulk of the BDR Plan will be implemented during the 2026-27 School Year. Our plan begins with a focus on reducing operational costs (and exploring increasing fees), then will incorporate staffing reductions in administrative and support staff, and finally will consider certified staffing positions as needed. 

Year 3: 

Determine and implement staffing reductions that can be attained through attrition along with any additional cuts to be implemented after analyzing the impacts of Year 1 and Year 2 reductions. This will be an ongoing process of monitoring our budget performance and progress to determine any additional adjustments to D118’s operations or staffing levels. 

September 19, 2025 Communication

October 3, 2025 Communication

October 31, 2025 Communication

November 9, 2025 Communication

Would removing the modular classrooms at Robert Crown generate savings for the BDR plan? (Updated: 11/25/25)

The modular classrooms at Robert Crown are leased with two remaining years on the contract at a cost of approximately $2,800 per month. The construction costs to remove these classrooms would not generate savings. With enrollment continuing to decrease at Robert Crown, removal of these modular classrooms could occur after their lease ends.

Why does it appear that a majority of certified staff cuts are occurring at the elementary schools instead of the middle and high schools? (Updated: 11/25/25)

District 118 increased staff across the district to assist with navigating COVID-19 and to meet other needs. The middle and high schools have had their staffing levels reduced over the past two years without the same actions being taken at our elementary schools. Out of the 35.1 FTE in reductions across the district, 15.3 FTE is to return to traditional class sizes.

Why didn't District 118 eliminate all four Instructional Coaches? (Updated: 11/25/25)

The decision to keep two instructional coaches included two factors:

• Two of our instructional coaches are paid out of district funds, and two are part of our Title 1 Federal grant. Current plans include reducing the two that are paid out of district funds. If we were to cut the two from our Federal grant funds, we would need to replace them with entirely new educational costs. The D118 Cabinet team felt the need to professionally develop and support our staff was more pertinent than finding new additional ways to supplement.

• The second reason the D118 Cabinet team maintained the positions was due to an anticipated decrease in other Federal funding, some associated with professional development staff. In this event, maintaining two existing coaches will be able to help us support our staff with the decreased funds.

Why hasn't the district reduced one of the five Assistant Superintendents? (Updated: 11/25/25)

The administrative team took immediate action to reduce the 2025-26 budget, which has been reduced by $1.5M. To define required reductions in next year's budget, our Cabinet has worked diligently to meet the Board's directive by:

• Soliciting BDR options from our Unions, Administrative Council (District Cabinet & Building Principals), Cabinet Team, Buildings and Grounds, and Transportation, and incorporated into BDR reductions

• Completing five rounds of BDR work with continuous feedback from our administration and Board, which now includes draft changes that generate a $5.1M reduction in the projected 2026-27 budget that is no longer projected to have a deficit

As promised, our efforts began with a focus on reducing operational costs, then incorporating administrative/non-union reductions. If our budget deficit could have been solved through those two avenues, we would have done so. Wauconda CUSD 118's budget mirrors that of most school districts, with roughly 75% of the district's operating budget going to salaries and benefits. Because nearly 75% of the district's operating budget is tied to salaries and benefits, balancing the budget cannot be done without affecting staffing. 

Data that has been used varies from comparative data with other districts, enrollment projections across all grades, case loads of our specialists, and analysis of essential duties along with options on how they can be successful given the reductions.

Administrative and support staff across the district have been reviewed and reduced where possible. Comparative administrative staffing and a review of duties and responsibilities has been and continues to be conducted. The support needed to operate an $80 million school district with over 800 employees and 4,200 students, meeting State and Federal mandates, providing human resources, business functions of payroll and accounts payable, special services and EL support, curriculum and instruction, technology support, and building leadership and employee evaluation require the positions that remain.

The focus of the administrative team's efforts have remained on continuing all course offerings, core and elective programs, athletics, activities, and required supports for students with IEP's and English Learners.

How do the proposed cuts reflect the shared driver to "keep cuts as far away from students as possible"? (Updated: 11/14/25)

One of our drivers has been working hard to maintain all course offerings, core and elective programs, athletics, activities, and required supports for students with IEPs and English Learners. As promised, our efforts began with a focus on reducing operational costs, then incorporating administrative/non-union reductions. If our budget deficit could have been solved through those two avenues, we would have done so. With the scope of the budget deficit, the plan also includes reducing and reallocating support staff and instructional staff. Changes also complete a return to traditional class sizes and strategically reduce staffing budgets. 

Wauconda CUSD 118’s budget mirrors that of most school districts, with roughly 75% of our operating budget going to salaries and benefits. Because nearly 75% of the district’s operating budget is tied to salaries and benefits, balancing the budget cannot be done without affecting staffing. We fully recognize that staffing cuts have an impact on some of our programs, and we will continue to work hard to maintain all course offerings, core and elective programs, athletics, activities, and required supports for students with IEPs and English Learners.

Can changes occur to the reductions contained within the draft BDR? (Updated: 11/14/25)

Our administrative team created a plan that includes what changes are contained within the BDR. It also included a significant amount of work by our Administrative Cabinet on how we believe these changes can be successful. We now expand our conversation on how we will maximize the success of the changes to include more voices, knowing that required duties and responsibilities from positions being cut will be assigned to existing staff. However, if we find that we can’t be successful with core needs, changes can be made by our administration that our Board will be asked to approve.

Expanding input into the plan may also identify opportunities that have not been incorporated. Our Cabinet Team remains open to insights that can improve our plan as we work to generate changes that maintain all course offerings, core and elective programs, athletics, activities, and required supports for students with IEPs and English Learners.

Given the Budget Deficit, why did the district move forward with an ELA exploration and adoption this year? (Updated: 11/14/25)

Teaching and learning are at the heart of everything we do in education, and ensuring that every student becomes a strong reader and communicator is central to that mission. A high-quality, standards-aligned ELA curriculum provides the foundation for all future academic success—particularly in the elementary grades, where literacy skills are built and reinforced daily. Our current ELA materials are more than eight years old and rely on outdated teaching methods that no longer align with current standards or best practices. Continuing to use these materials limits our teachers’ ability to deliver high-impact instruction and narrow learning gaps that become increasingly difficult and costly to close over time.

While we recognize the financial challenges the district faces, delaying the ELA adoption would shift the expense to a subsequent year, likely at a higher cost, while our students miss the benefits of updated, evidence-based, quality literacy education. Research shows that investing in a strong, evidence-based curriculum has one of the highest returns on student learning, particularly when compared to other, more expensive interventions. By moving forward with the adoption now, we are continuing in the core of our work—teaching students—and ensuring they have the tools and opportunities they need to succeed.

How do we know that our financial projections going forward are accurate, considering our previous 5-year projections didn't show the deficit was there? (Updated: 11/14/25)

District 118 previously completed two-year projections built off of each budget, which did not build off of all actual expenditures and did not fully build in special education programming. The budgeting process has been corrected to build off actual expenditures in each area, and the district's financial projection process has been updated to allow for five-year projections. Although many assumptions can change beyond the first two to three years, we believe these improved projections offer a clearer picture of the future financial position in the district.

Our financial projection model is also being reviewed as part of the independent, external team’s review of how our Business Office manages budgeting, reporting and spending. In addition, a Monthly Budget Monitoring Report was developed and implemented at our October 16th Board Meeting and will be reviewed monthly moving forward.

Why is it essential that the Board maintain a 25% Fund Balance? (Updated: 11/11/25)

Wauconda CUSD 118 is projected to have a Fund Balance (similar to a savings account) next year of roughly 25% of expenditures that is used to make payroll and pay bills until property taxes are distributed after significant expenses occur. With less than a 25% Fund Balance, the district could need to seek Tax Anticipation Warrants (e.g., paying interest to borrow money to make payroll), which would reduce the funding available for our educational programs. 

Fund Balances are also essential due to the uncertainty in Illinois's financing. In addition, our Fund Balance allows the district to respond to emergency facility issues that emerge within several of our aging schools.

Why does District 118 have two superintendents? (Updated: 11/11/25)

District 118 has secured two Interim Co-Superintendents as it awaits the right time to initiate a Superintendent Search. Dr. Leden and Dr. Wegley are retired superintendents who can each devote 120 days to District 118 without any benefits beyond their daily salary. This means the district has one superintendent role that is shared between two people.

What input has been sought to inform the Budget Deficit Reduction Plan? (Updated: 11/11/25)

Our BDR efforts have and will continue to seek input from our buildings, unions, and Board. Now that we have defined what changes are included in our BDR to get the district back on a sound financial footing, we will expand input from our team and staff to define how we will maximize success. As we complete the required work to restore a sound budget, we recognize that all changes are difficult. We will continue to gain insights and work to successfully implement defined changes.

How were the projected D118 Budget Deficit Projections impacted by the first and fifth rounds of defined operational, administrative, and staff reductions that are now included in the draft BDR plan? (Updated: 11/10/25)

The deficits projected this year and in the coming years will be significantly reduced due to the first round of defined changes to the D118 budget. While there is still work to be done, the changes incorporated in the first round have improved our Initial 2026 Financial Projections to a lower projected deficit after the Round One BDR 2026 Financial Projections. Click here to review our 2025-26 Budget, Initial 2026 and Round One BDR 2026 five-year financial projections. The summary of estimated projected budget deficits are below:

FY26 (2025-25)

Initial Financial Projection Budget Deficit: $4.2 Million

Anticipated Budget Deficit/Surplus after Round 1 of proposed BDR changes: -$3.5 Million

Anticipated Budget Deficit/Surplus after Round 5 of proposed BDR changes: -$3.5 Million

FY27 (2026-27)

Initial Financial Projection Budget Deficit: $5.2 Million

Anticipated Budget Deficit/Surplus after Round 1 of proposed BDR changes: -$773,000

Anticipated Budget Deficit/Surplus after Round 5 of proposed BDR changes: +$220,000

FY28 (2027-28)

Initial Financial Projection Budget Deficit: $6.4 Million

Anticipated Budget Deficit/Surplus after Round 1 of proposed BDR changes: -$1.4 Million

Anticipated Budget Deficit/Surplus after Round 5 of proposed BDR changes: +$326,000

FY29 (2028-29)

Initial Financial Projection Budget Deficit: $8.3 Million

Anticipated Budget Deficit/Surplus after Round 1 of proposed BDR changes: -$1.9 Million

Anticipated Budget Deficit/Surplus after Round 5 of proposed BDR changes: +$331,000

How will this affect property taxes in the district? (Updated: 10/31/25)

According to the School Report Card, in the 2023-24 school year, 74.8% of District 118’s funding comes from local funding (e.g., property taxes and fees), 20.4% from State funding, and 4.9% from Federal Funding. District 118 operates with other Lake County Schools under the Tax Cap, which limits property tax increases to Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 5%, whichever is less. The district also benefits from new local property growth. 

District 118 is committed to returning to a balanced budget within three years by making adjustments to operations and staffing levels. At this time, our plan does not include asking the community to consider a referendum to raise local taxes beyond the limit of the Tax Cap.

Why has the district decided to eliminate Orton-Gillingham training & materials within Regular Education? (Updated: 10/31/25)

While adjustments are being made at the budget level, our focus on early literacy remains unchanged. Over the past few years, elementary teachers have received Orton-Gillingham training, providing them with instructional approaches to teaching reading. Our teachers are equipped with Orton-Gillingham methods, and these practices will continue to be a part of both classroom instruction and targeted intervention.

Additionally, after eight years, the District is preparing to adopt a new ELA curriculum and is focusing only on that embed research-based reading instruction, such as Orton-Gillingham, into the Tier 1 core, ensuring all students benefit from strong foundational literacy practices.

What updates were made after round one of changes? (Updated: 10/3/25)

To view a summary of the update shared at the October 2, 2025 Board Meeting, click here.

When did the district become aware of the budget deficit? (Updated: 9/19/25)

When finalizing the 2024-25 Fiscal Year budget in July of 2025, District 118 discovered a significant budget deficit. The administration immediately notified the Board of Education and began to pinpoint the source of the shortfalls. The higher-than-anticipated figures in the 2024-25 budget led to inflated projections for the Tentative 2025-26 Fiscal Year budget. To address this issue, the administration drafted a course of action, including developing and implementing the 3-Year BDR Plan, to combat the deficit. 

What caused the budget deficit? (Updated: 9/19/25)

Lower than anticipated State Revenue, particularly transportation reimbursement and other categorical funding impacted our 2024-25 budget. Significant factors impacting our unaudited expenses exceeding our budget include:

• Substitute Budget

• Staffing Budget

• Out-of-District Tuition Budget

• Out-of-District Cab Budget

What will be the actions taken by the district to respond to the budget deficit? (Updated: 9/19/25)

The District 118 Cabinet Team has continued working diligently on our draft Budget Deficit Reduction (BDR) plan. We are also continuing to gain input from our buildings and departments and will continue to brainstorm and build operational and administrative and support staff reduction options as we build toward our targeted reduction. We are also generating a draft five-year financial projection that we will continue to refine to clarify our BDR reduction target.

Our BDR efforts have begun with a focus on reducing operational costs (and exploring increasing fees), then identifying staffing reductions in administrative and support staff, and finally will consider certified staffing positions as needed. Drivers of the plan include remaining transparent, ensuring budget accuracy moving forward, and keeping cuts as far away from students as possible, avoiding cuts to programming to the greatest extent possible. 

What are items included in the first year of the Budget Deficit Reduction Plan? (Updated: 9/19/25)

• Contingency staffing positions are frozen, however, this does not include current vacant positions throughout the district

• Reducing select budgets, not including building budgets

• Reducing community mailings to one time per year, utilizing electronic communication paths

• Professional Development substitutes and travel are being evaluated and will be reduced

• Evaluating the effectiveness of the Employee Assistance Program during the first semester of 2025-26

• Discontinuing the provided free counseling services for staff

• Eliminating the contract with the therapy dog

• Discontinuing the K-12 contract with Easter Seals

• Reducing the kitchen equipment budget

• Reducing the summer maintenance budget

• Revising and extending the textbook adoption cycle

How does this affect students, staff, and programs? (Updated: 9/19/25)

District 118 is committed to protecting the quality of education provided to students, keeping cuts as far away from students as possible and avoiding cuts to programming to the greatest extent possible. Our Budget Deficit Reduction efforts begin with a focus on reducing operational costs (and exploring increasing fees), then identifying staffing reductions in administrative and support staff, and finally will consider certified staffing positions as needed. As changes to operations and staffing levels are identified, impacts on students, staff, and programs will be shared transparently. 

How can the community stay informed? (Updated: 9/19/25)

To stay up-to-date with accurate and timely updates, we encourage our community to use this webpage as their primary resource. This page will be updated regularly and will contain the latest information, including key decisions, potential impacts, and progress updates. 

How will District 118 ensure it will provide quality education and support services amid the budget deficit? (Updated: 9/19/25)

District 118 Administration and the Board of Education are committed to minimizing impacts on classroom experiences and student support services. Our top priority is to protect the high-quality education and essential support services available to all students. 

How has District 118 been affected by changes in Federal and State funding? (Updated: 9/19/25)

State funding increased less than predicted and Federal funding decreased significantly for the 2025-26 Budget, which has negatively impacted our financial projections, also contributing to the need for this Budget Deficit Reduction effort. 

Why did District 118 hire so many new staff members over the Summer? (Updated: 9/19/25)

District 118’s programming and staffing plan was set prior to learning about the budget deficit. Once the deficit was understood, only essential positions were hired, and contingency staffing positions were frozen. After the impacts of changing operations to decrease expenditures are known, the district will implement staffing reductions in a systemic and measured fashion.

Executive Summary

Meeting Goal & Outcome

District 118’s current budget included a $4.2 million deficit after including over $850 in reductions. Financial projections predict approximately a $5.2 million deficit next year, exhausting the district’s fund balance (savings) within three years.

Upon learning of the budget deficit, the Board of Education directed the Administrative Team to define and implement BDR plan to restore the district’s sound financial footing. District 118’s Administrative Team has worked diligently to resolve the budget deficit while maintaining course offerings, core and elective programs, athletics, activities, and required supports for students with IEPs and English Learners. The budget changes captured in our Budget Deficit Reduction (BDR) plan will restore a fiscally sound budget for District 118 without a tax increase beyond the limit of the tax cap (5% or CPI, whichever is lower, plus new growth). 

Initially, plans included approving a Working Draft of the Budget Deficit Reduction Plan on December 13, 2025. We are grateful for over 400 committed and passionate community and staff members who joined our November 6, 2025, Board Meeting. Your voices, your passion, and your commitment to our students, teachers, and staff were unmistakable. We have heard our community. 

District 118 is acutely aware that navigating this budget situation presents significant challenges and uncertainty for our community. After hearing from the community and taking time to reflect, the Board of Education and Interim Co-Superintendents paused a planned November 13, 2025, vote on the Budget Deficit Reduction Plan to allow for more time for discussion and community input.

The Key Communicator’s Group was created as a representative group of parents and community members as one avenue to generate input from our community. 

How were members selected?

The Superintendents worked with our principals to identify individuals to attend from each school to ensure we had community-wide representation, and we emphasized including those who have actively engaged in this process, including several individuals who took the time to make public comments at our Board Meetings over the past few weeks. The committee of roughly 30 community members also included four community members who live in the community and no longer have students in our schools. 

The Key Communicator’s Group (KCG) meeting achieved the goal of further informing stakeholders about the budget deficit and gathering critical input on the proposed BDR Plan. The community members demonstrated a high degree of fiscal scrutiny and commitment to student welfare.

This report summarizes the meeting for our Board, Community, and Administrative Team.

Key Takeaways & Areas of Highest Concern

1. Trust & Accountability: The immediate cause of the crisis (under-budgeting and over-spending over several years) has created a profound trust deficit. The group shared their focus on accountability, oversight (the Cabinet’s and Board's roles), and future-proofing (hiring a qualified, experienced CSBO to replace the current CSBO who has resigned, effective at the end of this year). They emphasized the need for the district to restore trust.

2. Trade-offs: The group expressed concerns about the educational impact of the cuts. There is significant concern that reductions are disproportionately impacting early intervention and elementary education. 

3. Exploring Alternate Cuts: Many members of the Key Communicator Group strongly favor exploring additional options (outsourcing custodians, opening the teachers' contract, and non-student-facing positions) to reduce student-facing staff reductions. The group also shared an understanding that many of the reductions aligned with enrollment reductions over the previous several years, and appreciated learning more about the number of positions that have been added without reductions.

4. Communication Gaps: The need for context and specific data is imperative. For example:

   • The total number of positions vs. the number being cut (e.g., "3.0 FTE out of 9.9 FTE elementary Interventionalists").

   • The educational impact and rationale behind specific cuts (e.g., the fact that elementary Special Education Teachers (LBS) cuts include individuals with case loads of 2 and 3).

   • Include information about when positions were added to give context to considering these positions for reductions.

Immediate Action Items (Prior to Jan 15th Approval)

• Add additional context to communications to reduce confusion and increase understanding of the impacts proposed.

• Restoration of Trust Plan: Develop and communicate a concise, three-point plan for restoring community trust (e.g., new CSBO criteria, monthly public budget reports, improving budgeting systems (e.g., Cabinet collaboration around staffing and budgeting, considering zero-based budgeting in future years, etc.).

Detailed Section Summary

Section 1: D118 Budget Deficit & Responses

Presentation Focus: Root causes of the deficit (under-budgeting, over-spending (staff growth and contracts exceeding revenue), lack of adequate financial monitoring), and the district's immediate response (audit, BDR plan creation, new financial reporting systems).

Key Themes & Highlights:

• Accountability: The primary focus was on the causes—specifically overspending, under-budgeting, and poor record keeping. Honest but consequential mistakes were acknowledged, but some group members are struggling to move past the CSBO’s departure/accountability. The CSBO’s resignation at the end of the year was acknowledged, and several individuals indicated not knowing that. The issues with internal communication and accountability with the Cabinet and the Board Team were also discussed.

• Trust: Some shared their uneasiness regarding the interim co-superintendents stepping into a district they don’t know much about. Others shared their belief that experienced individuals without ties to the district offer significant advantages right now. There was a resounding consensus that restoring trust will be the single most critical task.

• Long-Term Problem: The deficit is understood to be a 5-year problem that was obscured by COVID/ESSER funds and poor monitoring, which significantly contributed to the significant deficit suddenly appearing.

Highest Priority Questions & Feedback:

• Financial Scrutiny: Queries regarding the cost of the financial audit ($7,000) and the lack of a monthly public budget report until now.

• CSBO/Board Oversight: Why was the responsible person allowed to resign and finish the year? 

  • Dr. Wegley noted that honest, but consequential mistakes occurred and that the CSBO has done everything asked of him. He noted that the CSBO continues to assist significantly with his knowledge of the district and budget as we work together to improve our systems and generate the Budget Deficit Reduction Plan.

  • Related Questions:

    • What specific financial background will the district commit to for the next CSBO? 

      • The need for an experienced CSBO with a financial background was a significant take away expressed in the meeting.

    • How informed is the Board, and what questions should they be asking? 

      • The fact that the Board has not been given all of the financial information they should have been given was also acknowledged. 

• Revenue Generation: Advocacy included considering hiring a full-time Grants/Scholarships position to focus on generating external revenue.

• Contract Context: Questions arose about the teacher contract's role in the problem, though it was acknowledged to be "part of the problem, not the only problem."

Section 2: Operational Budget Changes & Administrative/Non-Union Changes

Presentation Focus: Initial proposed cuts in operational expenses and reductions in Administrative/Non-Union staff (e.g., Associate Principals, Directors, department roles, B&G overtime).

Key Themes & Highlights:

• Impact on School Function: Significant concern over how losing the Academy Coordinator will impact the Academy Program.

• Priorities Conflict: Concerns that athletic stipends and possible uniform purchasing extensions should be considered.

• Administrative Staffing: Questions from the group focused on administrative staffing levels compared to area districts. 

  • District Office: It was noted that Lake Zurich has three Assistant Superintendents, while D118 has five. Data was shared that D118 also has 6 Directors, while Lake Zurich has 15 Directors/Executive Directors. The Superintendents also noted that D118 administrators all have the same insurance and benefits as our teachers, while many other districts provide full family insurance and enhanced benefits to their administrators. Additionally, D118 salaries are generally below the average for similar positions (regardless of title) in the surrounding area.

  • Safety and Security: Concern was also shared about the potential reduction of the new Director of Safety and Security. The fact that the duties of this role will be returned to the Assistant Superintendent of HR, the Assistant Superintendent of Finance, and the Superintendent was noted as many of these important responsibilities need to continue. As with all reductions, the alternative of increasing class sizes to accommodate continuing valuable positions is being considered, but also offers challenges.

  • Administrative Support: High School administrative support was discussed, especially related to the cutting of the Academy Coordinator, as well as the second Assistant Principal at Robert Crown. It was noted that our High School administrative support is also among the lowest of surrounding districts, and the fact that the high school’s teacher retention rate is consistently around 82%, creating a high percentage of non-tenured staff, requiring twice-yearly observations and additional instructional support. It was also noted that Administrative Council is seeking capacity within other administrative roles to enhance support at Robert Crown, if the second Assistant Principal that was added a few years ago is reduced. 

• Subbing Costs: The cost of subbing was brought up by several individuals, noting that subbing pay for District 118 is significantly higher than surrounding districts. Advocacy for considering lowering sub pay while limiting in-school subbing was shared.

Highest Priority Questions & Feedback:

• Cuts Context: The group requested context on how many total staff members exist in a category when a cut is proposed (e.g., "Reducing 3 out of 9.9 Elementary Interventionalists").

• HR Audit: Strong recurring suggestion to conduct an HR Audit to update job descriptions, analyze staff attendance, and create attendance incentive programs.

• Outsourcing: Clear interest was shared in outsourcing services (e.g., custodial) given the potential for significant savings observed in other districts.

• Recruitment: Group members shared concern that these cuts will make District 118 a "starter district", which could negatively impact recruiting efforts.

Section 3: Support and Certified Staffing Changes

Presentation Focus: Proposed RIFs (Reductions in Force) among certified and support staff.

Key Themes & Verbal Summary Highlights:

• Early Intervention Support: The elimination of two of the EL Assistants and other early intervention support staff (psychologists, social workers, LBS) was also shared. The group shared concern that this was contradictory to the district's stated priority of students and educational research on the importance of early support. It was noted that the support cuts are a reduction of support, in many cases reducing positions that have been added during COVID. A few details discussed included:

  • Details such as the fact that some elementary Special Education LBS cuts affect individuals with caseloads of 2 or 3 students were also discussed. Our district’s practice has been to maintain case manager caseloads at 13 students.

  • As with all aspects of the plan, if EL Assistants reductions (2.0 FTE out of the current 7.0 FTE) are found to be reduced to a level that does not provide required support, the plan will be adjusted accordingly.

  • The Behavior Specialist position being eliminated is currently unfilled.

  • The 5.8 FTE in psychologists at the elementary level is being reduced by 1.0 FTE.

• Data-Driven Decisions: There have been repeated requests for additional data or state metrics to justify the recommended reductions to student support roles, including school psychologists, social workers, and the Academy Coordinator. The district noted that it is not possible to share all of the data being used to guide these decisions, but it was emphasized that all decisions are data driven (e.g., elementary Special Education LBS cuts include individuals with case loads of 2 and 3. Our district’s practice has been to maintain case manager caseloads at 13 students). It was also noted that our Special Services Office wanted a second pair of eyes on reductions proposed. To support this, the Special Services Office reached out to Dr. Judy Hackett to ask whether she would be willing to review our special education data.

Dr. Hackett currently serves as the Interim Co-Superintendent of the Special Education District of Lake County (SEDOL), of which Wauconda CUSD 118 is a member, and she also serves as a member of the Illinois State Board of Education. Given her deep expertise and statewide perspective, we felt it would be beneficial to have a second set of objective eyes review the special education staffing reductions outlined in the BDR that will be presented to the Board of Education in January.

Highest Priority Questions & Feedback:

• LBS/Special Ed: Demands for specific data (context) on the LBS staffing ratio and clarification on the "unforeseen staffing costs" in specialized programs that led to this deficit.

• Position Totals: The group reiterated requests to provide the total number of staff in a position when reporting the FTE reduction (e.g., "Reducing 3 out of 9.9 Elementary Interventionalists").

• Add context to communications to reduce confusion and increase understanding of the impacts proposed.

Section 4: Summary Feedback (Final Questions & Ideas)

Presentation Focus: Final wrap-up questions, identification of top communication gaps, and brainstorming for new ideas and considerations.

• Restoring Trust (Overarching Goal): The central theme was the demand for a concrete, publicly communicated plan to restore trust and show the community that this budget crisis is being treated as a market correction to years of flawed practice, requiring systemic change.

• Disproportionate Impact: Groups noted that the proposed reductions appear to heavily affect the elementary level (early intervention) and Special Education support, raising concerns that this contradicts educational best practices and the district’s stated student priorities.

  • The fact that the Middle School and High School have already had reductions in staffing from added positions over the past few years was highlighted by the administrative team. Those same adjustments are now occurring at the elementary schools.

• The Need for Context: The community stressed that the communication must move beyond simple percentages and FTE counts to understand the dollar amount of given changes and the context (e.g., "Reducing 3 out of 9.9 Elementary Interventionalists"). There is an urgent need for the district to provide data and educational rationale to explain why specific cuts are necessary and what the actual impact will be.

Highest Priority Questions & Feedback:

• Accountability & Trust: What is the plan to restore trust? Will changes be made at the district level (e.g., new CSBO criteria, board oversight) to show accountability for past failures?

• Cuts Rationale & Data: The plan would benefit from clarity on the overall number of positions versus the number being lost (total vs. cut). Request for the educational impact (context) and the metrics behind the cuts when possible (e.g., LBS data, Special Education decisions). Along those lines, several individuals noted that it was helpful to know that, even with a significant decline in enrollment across the district, there have been several positions added over the past several years. Some of these instructional positions have been reduced at the middle and high school levels without similar reductions at the elementary schools.

• Alternative Solutions: Strong and consistent questioning regarding alternative paths, including Referendum planning, outsourcing services (e.g., custodial), and the feasibility of the teachers' union opening their contract for review. Specific questions included why the highest steps on the teacher’s salary schedule include increases that exceed the 6% limit that could generate retirement penalties for the district.

Systemic Change: The need for continued systems improvement was shared (e.g., monthly public budget reports, improving budgeting systems (e.g., Cabinet collaboration around staffing and budgeting), considering zero-based budgeting in future years, etc.).