More than 40 students, staff members, parents, grandparents and community members addressed the Unit 5 Board of Education on March 18 as the district moved closer to an expected April vote on enrollment planning proposals that could reshape attendance boundaries and change how some buildings are used.

A total of 42 people spoke during public comment, according to the district, with 41 addressing enrollment planning in a session that did not adjourn until 2:58 a.m.

Many urged the board to keep Glenn and Carlock elementary schools open, preserve walkable neighborhood schools and slow the process.

Others raised concerns about equity, questioning whether open attendance areas could disproportionately affect minority students and asked the district to ensure the 18-22 special services program, currently at Field, is housed in a facility better suited to student needs than an elementary school.

Several speakers also thanked the board for its support of the Field program.

Superintendent Dr. Kristen Weikle said district officials understand how emotional the process has become for families.

“Conversations about enrollment planning,” Weikle said, “can be some of the most challenging and emotional discussions a school district faces.”

Weikle said the work began during the 2023-24 school year with a capacity study and continued this year with a longer enrollment planning study at the board’s direction. Throughout the process, she said, the district has tried to balance family concerns with long-term district needs.

“We understand that the decisions being considered affect real students and families,” Weikle said. “We recognize that the proposals and eventual outcomes may not be ones everyone agrees with, but know the work has been done to consider the needs of students and the long-term stability of the district in mind.”

Weikle also said the district’s planning process was not driven by one single goal.

“We have received questions about the purpose of this work—is it to save money, eliminate portables, or address population shifts?” Weikle said. “The answer is yes, to all of those.”

She said district leaders used eight criteria to evaluate possible solutions and did not elevate one factor above the others, with the possible exception of building utilization.

Unit 5 first presented two draft redistricting proposals publicly on Feb. 19 during its third Enrollment Planning Public Information Session. Both proposals redraw boundaries across much of the district, but the most debated changes involve Carlock and Glenn. Under the proposals, Carlock could close and Glenn could be repurposed for the district’s 18-22 program, district officials said earlier in the process.

District officials have said the proposals are intended to reduce reliance on portable classrooms, address uneven building use and respond to enrollment shifts across the district.

At earlier meetings, Weikle said Unit 5 expects an overall decline of about 250 students in coming years, though enrollment pressures are uneven across schools. Some schools are near capacity while others are significantly underused. The district is also trying to reduce portable classroom use and address facility concerns, including accessibility and program placement.

Opposition centered on community identity and trust

Community response at the March 18 meeting focused heavily on school identity, neighborhood impact and what several speakers described as a broken process.

One parent said her six-year-old son could not understand why he might be separated from his closest friends. She said Carlock accounts for less than 1% of the district’s budget and argued closing it would create more problems than it solves, including increased transportation costs for a community where most families currently walk or drive their children to school.

A Carlock community member challenged the district’s financial framing, arguing that the Carlock Elementary School District generates significantly more property tax revenue per student than the district average—roughly $24,000 per student compared to about $13,500 districtwide. He urged the board to complete a full expense analysis before making a final decision.

The community’s frustration with the timeline was a recurring theme. Sarah Burnett, a Unit 5 graduate whose son attends Glenn, said families were given too little time to process, research and respond to a proposal that included closing two schools—and received no financial information to consider alongside it.

Burnett also questioned whether the proposals were consistent with promises made to voters. She said board members publicly committed after the 2023 and 2025 tax referendums that the district would continue providing existing services and be good stewards of new revenue. Less than a year after the most recent vote, she said, the district is proposing to close two schools, including Carlock, which was designated exemplary in 2024-25 and spent roughly $2,000 less per student than the district average while posting above-average academic results.

“Why are we not adjusting our boundaries to ensure that these schools that have stellar performance remain open?” Burnett said.

Another speaker was more direct.

Alyssa Whitehurst, who identified herself as a second-generation Carlock alumna, accused the board of reaching a conclusion before the public process played out and said the community’s opposition was clear.

“Nearly 80% of your own survey respondents supported keeping schools like Carlock open,” Whitehurst said. She argued that closing a high-performing school that represents roughly half of 1% of the district’s budget was not a matter of necessity. “Stop trying to justify a decision that was clearly made before the public process ever played out,” she said.

A parent who described her family’s deliberate choice to buy a home near Glenn said the school’s diversity—linguistic, cultural and socioeconomic—was central to its value. She said her daughter quickly formed friendships with children who spoke at least four different languages among them, calling those relationships part of what she described as “the unwritten curriculum” no school can guarantee through written policy.

One father said walkability was a factor in his family’s decision to purchase their home and that Glenn represented a level of social trust that is increasingly rare.

“That level of social trust is so sorely lacking in today’s society,” he said, “and whenever we can find it, we need to nurture it.”

A third-grade Glenn student also addressed the board, telling members she has had “the most amazing times” at the school and that her younger sister, who would start kindergarten next year, deserves the same experience.

Equity concerns raised over open enrollment areas

Several speakers raised concerns that the proposals could have a disparate impact on Black, brown and low-income families, particularly those living in areas designated as open enrollment zones under both draft proposals.

Shenika Perkins-Coleman, of the Bloomington-Normal Chapter of Jack and Jill of America, Inc., said she was alarmed during the Feb. 19 presentation to see that several open enrollment areas were predominantly home to economically disadvantaged and minority families. She said those communities have historically been brought into district conversations too late.

“I want to believe this was not intentional,” Perkins-Coleman said, “but as many have said, intent does not erase impact.”

She called on the board to slow the process and provide clearer, more transparent explanations of what open enrollment areas would mean in practice for affected families.

Erica Howard echoed those concerns, saying families in the Savannah Green subdivision, apartment complexes along Orlando Avenue and similar areas could face significantly longer bus rides to schools like Sugar Creek, passing schools they could currently walk to. She said families without reliable transportation would face serious challenges if a child became ill or an emergency arose, and she asked the board to table the proposals to allow more time for community input.

18-22 program staff seek better facility

Mrs. Marissa Fritsch, a staff member with more than 12 years in the district’s 18-22 program, said the current location at Eugene Field is no longer adequate. She said the building—originally an elementary school deemed unsuitable for traditional use after 2004 and reopened for the 18-22 program in 2013 with minimal upgrades—has persistent problems, including an aging boiler system, inadequate electrical access, sewer issues and a lack of space.

The program has grown by more than 300% since it began at that location, she said, and also serves as the hub for a work program that includes 136 student workers from Community, West and Heartland.

Ms. Jordan Newton, a Eugene Field staffer, said the building’s limitations should not overshadow what the program accomplishes.

“While the building, Eugene Field, is meaningful,” Newton said, “because it’s where it all started, the building is not what’s important.”

The staff, students, parents and community partners are what make the 18-22 program successful, Newtwon said, adding that the program is an asset to any neighborhood it operates in and thanking the board for considering facility options appropriate to the program’s needs.

Board expected to vote April 15

The March 18 meeting was followed the next evening by an additional public presentation of both proposals. The presentation covered the planning process, timeline and the two draft proposals.

The board presentation, prepared with consulting firm Cropper GIS, outlined eight criteria used to evaluate both proposals, including building utilization, proximity, transportation efficiency, diversity and future growth.

According to the district’s scoring, Proposal 1 fully met more of those criteria than Proposal 2, which was rated as only partially meeting several, including building utilization and busing efficiency.

The two proposals carry similar construction and renovation cost estimates—between $32.3 million and $45.9 million depending on the plan—and would be financed through bonds paid with county school facilities tax revenue, with no projected increase in property taxes.

The key financial distinction is in annual savings: Proposal 1 is estimated to save between $1.5 million and $2.4 million per year through staffing reductions and building closures, while Proposal 2 is projected to save roughly $122,000 annually, largely because it keeps Carlock open.

The board is scheduled to vote on a final proposal April 15, according to the district timeline. Weikle said the district will continue sharing information and answering questions before a final decision.

“We will continue to provide information, answer questions, and make decisions that support our students and the future of Unit 5,” Weikle said.