Hinsdale High board approves 10.3 FTE certified‑staff reduction after debate over transition‑center costs and class access

The Board of Education of Hinsdale Township High School District 86 on April 6 approved a staffing recommendation that trims certified staffing by a net 10.3 full‑time equivalent positions for the 2026–27 school year, bringing combined classroom and direct‑student support staffing to 351.7 FTE.

The reduction approved by the board includes a 4.3 FTE decrease at Hinsdale Central, 2.8 FTE at Hinsdale South and a 1.2 FTE net decrease at the district’s transition center; administrators said two administrative vacancies (director of professional learning and director of data analytics) will not be filled, accounting for an additional 2.0 FTE reduction. The motion passed on roll call, 7‑0.

Why it matters: the staffing recommendation affects course offerings, support services and the district’s transition‑program model. Several public commenters told the board that scheduling and transportation choices have limited student access to small‑enrollment courses such as orchestra and AP Seminar, and urged alternatives such as synchronous teacher‑led hybrid classes or limited shuttle schedules to increase participation.

"When 30 South students expressed interest in orchestra, why didn't we run orchestra at South?" speaker Kim Notaro asked during public comment, saying transportation arrangements and assignment to study halls appeared to suppress enrollment. Linda Burke told the board the transition center provides important services and questioned whether the district’s $89,000 per‑student figure overstated net cost.

Administration and finance staff responded with clarifications. Assistant Superintendent Dr. Smith said a recent work session reduced the transition center recommendation by one certified position (to a net −1.2), and said further work sessions with incoming Superintendent Pettit are planned. CFO Stevenson said the $89,500 figure cited is the site‑based expenditure report; when indirect administrative costs and certain grant allocations are backed out, the district’s analysts show lower direct‑cost approximations (roughly $65,000 and, after further adjustments, about $55,000 depending on grant allocation).

Board member remarks emphasized the collaborative nature of the staffing review. One board member thanked administration for working with the board and the incoming superintendent and noted the district’s staffing level has dropped substantially compared with prior years while cautioning that more discussion may be needed in future cycles.

Next steps: administrators said they will continue analysis of transition programming and staffing needs in work sessions with the incoming superintendent; the board approved the staffing plan pending further analysis. The motion to approve the staffing recommendation carried 7‑0.