Why Chicago's School Districts Can't Learn from Evanston's Success

The Illusion of Reform

When I first heard about District 65 in Evanston and Skokie, it was with the kind of hopeful curiosity that makes us all believe change is possible. Their schools consistently rank among the best in Illinois—test scores soar, graduation rates are near perfect, and the community takes pride in its educational achievements. But as a journalist who has spent years covering public education in Chicago, I've learned to approach such success stories with skepticism. The truth is, District 65 operates within a completely different ecosystem—one that most of Chicago's districts simply cannot replicate without sweeping structural changes.

"The disparities between Evanston and Chicago are not just about funding—they're rooted in demographics, governance models, and social capital," I wrote in my first column on this topic.

Demographics That Define Opportunity

One of the most glaring differences is population. District 65's student body is approximately 60% white and 25% Asian, with a median household income that exceeds Chicago's by more than $40,000. Contrast this with Chicago Public Schools, where over 80% of students are Black or Latino and nearly 40% live below the poverty line. The socioeconomic context is not just different—it's fundamentally at odds with the resources and community support systems that make District 65 thrive.

These disparities don't simply reflect inequality—they define it. Schools in affluent suburbs like Evanston have a built-in advantage: parents who can afford to invest time, energy, and money into their children's education. They have access to tutoring, enrichment programs, college prep resources, and advocacy networks that Chicago schools are rarely able to match.

The Hidden Cost of Local Control

Another critical factor is local governance. District 65 benefits from the autonomy that comes with small districts and wealthy taxpayer bases. They can make decisions quickly—whether it's adopting new curricula, investing in teacher training, or updating school facilities. In Chicago, a bureaucratic maze of central office oversight, political infighting, and limited budget flexibility prevents local schools from acting with agility.

Take, for instance, the recent initiative to provide free meals to all students. While this was a major win in Evanston, it took years of community organizing and local funding to implement across the district. In Chicago, even when such initiatives are approved at the central level, they often fall short due to administrative bottlenecks and insufficient local support.

What About Equity?

I've often heard the argument that Chicago can improve if it simply “copies” successful models like District 65. But equity is not just a policy slogan—it's a structural challenge that demands more than superficial changes. For example, while Chicago has made strides in increasing funding per student, the disparities between neighborhoods remain stark.

The real question isn't whether we can replicate Evanston—it's whether we're willing to dismantle the systemic inequities that prevent Chicago's schools from achieving similar outcomes. If our only goal is to make schools look like District 65, we're ignoring the deeper failures of public education in this city.

Challenging the Status Quo

We must stop equating school success with the presence of affluent communities. That's a dangerous myth that has held back meaningful reform for decades. The goal should be to create equitable systems where all children—regardless of zip code or family income—can thrive.

That means investing in high-poverty schools not as a temporary fix but as a permanent commitment. It means ensuring every school has access to quality teachers, modern infrastructure, and resources that reflect their potential. And it means challenging the narrative that some children are simply “not ready” for success—because that's exactly what keeps them from ever getting there.

A Call for Bold Thinking

Chicago's education landscape is ripe for transformation. But the path forward requires bold, unapologetic action—action that confronts not just policy failures but the social and economic conditions that underpin them. We cannot continue to admire District 65 while failing to see how its success reflects privilege, not merit.

The question isn't whether Chicago schools can become like Evanston's. The question is: are we ready to build systems that ensure all students get a fair shot at the education they deserve?