With respect, I have failed to hear an explanation for "We seem to have limited options available", because the administration & board offered no options to consider and in fact HID THE REAL CONSEQUENCES OF CLOSINGS. Never heard of boundary changes? Now that's real work accept when dumping on less influential families? I accept that solutions might leave schools somewhat less resourced, but as you said - "Neighborhood schools offer significant benefits". The accounting is especially suspect if the administration contorts itself to "keep the buildings operating". Shannon Kimball supported spending millions on Pinckney before supporting repurposing to some undetermined, definitionally inappropriate new use for a just-upgraded neighborhood school facility. I also accept the fact that there might be adverse funding impacts to the most privileged schools in town but discount that for the advantage of not being overcrowded. A few specials teachers might travel between schools, but that beats forcing families with the least resources hauling their kids to someone else's crowded "factory model", over-populated schools. Their new principle most likely won't know their name and family and spends the majority of their time "at the District Office". I would apply some real "factory style" analysis and justify EVERY 497 position by starting with an applicable question - "Do you touch the product?", as in student-contact hours. This is what real classroom teachers and para's are asking. Maybe what our admirably hard-working, state and nationally-connected Shannon Kimball lacks is common sense and local classroom awareness that Ariel Minor can provide.
Jim, also with respect, your comment would suggest that you think the board and district administration are either pretty incompetent or have had an agenda bent on closing neighborhood schools. The district did present other options over the last year – they involved substantial cuts to programs and classroom/student support. There are no other financially sustainable (year-to-year) options available to give our teachers and staff substantial raises without drastically cutting programs, support, and curriculum. Boundary changes won’t do it. Cutting district administration won’t provide enough extra dollars (and would actually make things worse for teachers and staff and building level admin). Solar panels won’t provide enough extra $. And we can’t keep hoping from year to year that our financial situation will change. We’ve been doing that and now our financial reserves are gone (hastened by the state legislature).
State level funding and the long history of attacks from the state legislature are not excuses. They’re the driving force behind a lot of this (along with society’s general undervaluing of public education). We have to change the makeup of the legislature. And the state funding formula must recognize and incorporate the value of neighborhood schools.
I covered some of this in my budget post from March (https://marcelharmon67.substack.com/p/lawrences-school-district-budget). Shannon has covered a lot of it on her page (https://www.kimballforschoolboard.org/faq). She’s shared a lot on her Facebook page over the last year. It’s been talked about a lot in board meetings and in the papers. Does the district always do a great job at communicating all of this? No, and it often makes me frustrated. But having been a board member I know that problem is largely contributed to by overworked staff and the way the budgeting process plays out year to year (driven by state and federal law). It’s also true that the community doesn’t always do a great job of staying informed (understandable given what many have on their plate day to day). So, when people do to start to pay attention, it’s often because of something that directly impacts them, but they then lack the history of what’s lead to the problem or issue.
I had seen that you left this comment, deleted it, then submitted it again (which I have no problem with wanting to spend more time thinking about what you want to say). There was one aspect of your comment that I thought deserved a general response, so I put something together on my Facebook page since I didn’t know if you would submit any other comment. It's too long to include with this reply, so I'll include in a reply after this.
Someone supporting Ariel Miner over Shannon posted a comment on my substack about this that I think needs a response in general. This person stated that the district needs to apply “some real ‘factory style’ analysis and justify EVERY 497 position by starting with an applicable question – ‘Do you touch the product?’, as in student-contact hours,” with that being part of the justification for spending less on administration or other areas of support.
And at the League of Women Voters’ school board candidate forum on Sept. 25, 2023 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEAwZR7AzoU&t=6s&ab_channel=LawrencePublicLibrary), Arial Miner at approximately the 34:54 mark, states the following: “Budget priorities for me would be no new programming for a bit and stabilize things. We have new teachers that need to get comfortable and need to feel supported. Keep our public dollars as close to the teachers the staff and the students as possible. Remove any waste from the budget. Get everyone to a living wage [of] sixteen dollars an hour. Complete financial transparency. Schools are underfunded on purpose in Kansas. It’s not an accident [and] it’s been happening that way for decades. We cannot afford to have leaders who have other agendas.”
In addition, in the Lawrence Times Meet the 2023 Lawrence School Board Candidates article (https://lawrencekstimes.com/2023/09/16/meet-2023-usd497-board-candidates/), Jody Myer stated “We have to stop blaming all our budget issues on the state and work efficiently and responsibly with the funds we have. We need to focus on the ABCs: Academics, Budget and Communication.”
The basic point seems to be if the district wasn’t so fiscally irresponsible, if the district would just focus on putting more dollars into the classroom and instruction (also to the building level, but a lesser degree), and stop wasting dollars on administrative salaries, curriculum updates, and other unnecessary expenditures, we wouldn’t have had to close Pinckney and Broken Arrow. Laying blame to inadequate state funding is just an excuse.
Anyone who’s been advocating for public education over the last 10+ years should recognize this as one of the basic talking points of ultracon politicians and anti-public education activists/lobbyists that they use to justify defunding public education. Districts are bloated, top-heavy, and don’t spend enough of their existing dollars on basic instruction.
Dave Trabert CEO of the Kansas Policy Institute, a Wichita-based nonprofit free-market think tank (and yes, IMO the word think should be in quotes), was recently (2023) quoted as saying “KPI has never advocated to reduce funding. We’ve certainly talked about how schools could operate more efficiently. We’ve talked about how some of their practices, like having cash balances grow year after year after year, indicate that they’re not even spending all the money they get. But we haven’t advocated to cut spending. We’ve found ways that they can save money and put savings in classrooms.” - https://heartlandernews.com/2023/04/10/school-board-members-can-actually-be-hampered-from-doing-their-jobs-by-an-entrenched-education-establishment-this-new-organization-is-here-to-help/. I’m ignoring the BS here about KPI never advocating to reduce funding and district cash balances because they’re not part of the point I’m trying to make.
Back in 2012 Trabert gave similar testimony along the lines of needing “to increase funds directly related to classroom instruction and reduce administrative expenses.” – https://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/oct/08/statehouse-live-governors-task-force-school-effici/. Though increasing funds meant moving a greater % of existing funds into the classroom, not actually increasing overall funding. In 2022 Trabert stated “But the [school funding] formula isn’t the problem [districts don’t need additional funding]. It’s how local officials decide to spend money that results in there being a lot of winners and losers.” - https://wichitabeacon.org/stories/2022/09/12/kansas-school-funding/.
In 2018, Kris Kobach proposed that 75% of district funding should go to the classroom (incredulously including capital expenses and bond-and-interest payments into the mix of the 100%), and that districts should cut administration and building spending to get there - https://www.kansas.com/latest-news/article220979095.html. In 2012 former Governor Sam Brownback was portrayed as shifting “the debate from a focus on raw dollars to how effectively those dollars are spent by appointing a school efficiency task force dominated by certified public accountants. He [Brownback] contends the state needs to do a better job of making sure its aid finances classroom instruction.” - https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/education/2012/10/15/analysis-education-funding-debate-hits-key-issues/16418453007/.
I could go on, but you get the picture. The message of these anti-pubic education politicians and activists isn’t really about providing more funding to the classroom – it’s about districts making do with the inadequate funding they currently have. Cut administration, nurses, custodians, facilities staff, food service workers, social workers, paras, librarians, school-based administration, extracurricular activities, farm-to-school programs, school gardens, etc., so that the percentage of $ to the classroom goes up (and the quality of public education goes down).
Teachers need to be well-paid with access to adequate resources in the classroom. They also need to be supported by an adequate number of building and district-wide administrators and other support staff who are also competitively paid to attract and keep them within the district. Students need access to these resources outside of the classroom, and this need for support has only grown over the last few decades as public schools are forced to take on other public services we’ve neglected as a society.
And if you’re complaining about district transparency now, just imagine what that transparency would look like with even less administrators present, struggling even more to deal with greater workloads, with even less time available to think about transparency. Adequate transparency requires an adequate number of people in place to do all of the work associated with sharing/communicating the intricacies associated with district goals, actions, data, etc.
Multiple public education advocates have laid this out in detail over the years – KASB, Game on for Kansas Schools, Educate Lawrence… Shannon herself has done so a lot over the years. But several of our school board candidates don’t seem to be as aware of this history. While I don’t think this is their intention, the messaging above from school board candidates plays right into the hands of these long-term goals of anti-public education forces - starve public school districts of necessary funds which force actions like school closures, program cuts, inadequate salaries, teacher/staff shortages, etc. This creates conflict at the local level and distracts from the bigger picture and what’s going on in Topeka as communities argue over limited recourses, point fingers at one another, and generally eat their own. All of which further damages these school districts.
Shannon is well aware of the bigger picture and its history, having battled anti-public education forces a lot during her tenure on the board. And there would likely be a fair number of anti-public education politicians and lobbyists who wouldn’t mind seeing her ousted from the school board. I think a fair number of our teachers recognize this as well, considering LEA has endorsed her (https://www.facebook.com/LawrenceEdAssoc/posts/pfbid0tQ87LpqapjWRf2dhfPeRYmPuQ75RibX7D8QPLf9U7Ui9z8aXkVJqDCk1uZoouJ34l), along with GR Gordon-Ross (whom I also support). Now I need to do my due diligence and decide who else I’ll be voting for.
Putting any of today's candidates in the frame of "right wing critics" just because they criticize the administration or incumbents seems inappropriate. No campaign for an incumbent seat has ever focused on persuading voters that "all is well - no need for change". MY suggesting a review of an apparently very costly school is not the the same as advocating for anything Kobach has spewed. Certainly Ariel Miner has nothing in common with the goals or methods of Mr. Kobach.
Shannon argues - "In 2020-2021, our smallest elementary school (199 students) cost $15,757 per student. Our largest elementary school that year (over 450 students) cost $9,485 per student." Is this an oversimplification, an deliberate exaggeration, or an admission of mismanagement by the incumbents? Smaller schools don't have to be this poorly managed, although the smaller neighborhood school advantages surely come at some premium.
First these schools-closings barely passed by a 1-vote margin, hardly a strong argument for validity nor savvy leadership. The finances and the plan to address the problems clearly weren't compelling to near half the board members. These are the best informed people in the district, who are also smart, dedicated people. When there is such a "hard pill" for the community to swallow, an experienced board works its way to consensus.
I have admiration for Shannon's efforts and no animosity. I simply think these school closings were unwise, were poorly explained, and we need new leadership for the next two years. Ariel Minor will take a fresh look. And I hope Shannon continues to advocate against the destructive Kobach-aligned forces in our State and beyond.
I didn’t say these candidates share the goals or philosophy of right-wing politicians or anti-public education activists. I believe that they are supporters of public education. I’m also glad that there are people out there who want to serve, and ultimately for the right reasons.
My point, however, was that by laying the blame of school closures at the feet of board members and district administration, by arguing that it’s ultimately because of gross mismanagement, bloated administration, and a lack of creativity – in the process ignoring the local/state history of how we got here, lacking an understanding of how district budgets and state/federal funding works (and associated laws/regulations), lacking an understanding of what it takes to successfully operate a district in order to educate and support students, as well as support teachers and staff (especially in terms of the number of district/building administrators and the myriad of other support staff required), lacking an understanding of what fills the day of all the individuals running, supporting, and teaching in a district – these candidates play right into the hands of right-wing politicians and anti-public education lobbyists.
They make the same attacks and they deliberately ignore what is actually required to equitably educate kids in a public education system as part of justifying those attacks. School board candidates, especially if they're pro public education, should be aware of this history and the broader context (and how these politicians would love to use such candidate criticisms to support their own statements and actions). It doesn’t mean you can’t criticize district administration and board members. Of course we need to hold them accountable. But that accountability (and proposed solutions) must take the contextual realities that districts operate within into account.
Your elementary school cost per student reference does not suggest poor management of the smaller neighborhood schools. There are a minimum number of staff required to operate a school building (some requirements related to state and federal law). Smaller schools will inherently cost more per student than larger schools. And when those smaller schools become increasingly underutilized compared to the larger schools (as a result of lower enrollments impacting them worse, for example), that delta in cost per student gets pretty big. Boundary changes if done to move students into these smaller schools, won’t result in enough cost savings (if any net savings by the time busing and staffing is accounted for) to keep the smaller schools open and still give teachers/staff a needed raise. Plus the district has spent years playing with staffing/services where they could (like sharing some staffing among schools) to help keep the schools afloat. And that also has a negative impact on students.
Yes, it was a 4 to 3 vote to close these two schools. I will note that none of the three who voted no had an actual plan to sustainably give teachers/staff a significant raise and keep the schools open without drastically cutting more programs and their staff (they were also three of the least experienced board members). These 3 were simply kicking the can down the road again, to the detriment of the district’s finances and district stability. In my opinion these three board members weren’t able to make the really hard decision and do what the data before them indicated was the best course of action for all of the district’s students. Nobody wanted to close these schools. But at this point, neighborhood schools require more money in the funding formula overall and likely a modifier that recognizes their broader benefit. Though at this point we’re not even fully funding districts per the formula.
You state that “… these school closings were unwise, [and] were poorly explained.” I actually agree. The closings were unwise relative to the benefits we’ve now lost and inequitably felt, as I’ve covered elsewhere and many others have talked about. But keeping them open would have been even more unwise for the district as a whole. And yes, aspects of this weren’t communicated well (as I’ve also covered elsewhere). But that is also strongly correlated with an inadequate number of administrators/staff needed to do the job of explaining/communicating, exacerbated by the nature of how budgeting/planning and data unfold or become available over the course of the school year.
Now the district needs to figure out how to mitigate the negative impacts of the school closings, avoid further closings if possible, begin to build back our contingency fund, continue planning for more raises and supporting teachers/staff, building back programs previously cut or minimized (in part to keep these schools open), and deal with the crud in Topeka while equitably educating/supporting our students. Shannon is better positioned to support these efforts than Ariel Miner. Most teachers would seem to agree as the LEA is publicly supporting her over Miner. But I hope Ariel Miner continues to stay engaged, educate herself more on public education/district operations within our state (and its history), and engage other public education advocacy groups that have been working for years locally and in the state.
With respect, I have failed to hear an explanation for "We seem to have limited options available", because the administration & board offered no options to consider and in fact HID THE REAL CONSEQUENCES OF CLOSINGS. Never heard of boundary changes? Now that's real work accept when dumping on less influential families? I accept that solutions might leave schools somewhat less resourced, but as you said - "Neighborhood schools offer significant benefits". The accounting is especially suspect if the administration contorts itself to "keep the buildings operating". Shannon Kimball supported spending millions on Pinckney before supporting repurposing to some undetermined, definitionally inappropriate new use for a just-upgraded neighborhood school facility. I also accept the fact that there might be adverse funding impacts to the most privileged schools in town but discount that for the advantage of not being overcrowded. A few specials teachers might travel between schools, but that beats forcing families with the least resources hauling their kids to someone else's crowded "factory model", over-populated schools. Their new principle most likely won't know their name and family and spends the majority of their time "at the District Office". I would apply some real "factory style" analysis and justify EVERY 497 position by starting with an applicable question - "Do you touch the product?", as in student-contact hours. This is what real classroom teachers and para's are asking. Maybe what our admirably hard-working, state and nationally-connected Shannon Kimball lacks is common sense and local classroom awareness that Ariel Minor can provide.
Jim, also with respect, your comment would suggest that you think the board and district administration are either pretty incompetent or have had an agenda bent on closing neighborhood schools. The district did present other options over the last year – they involved substantial cuts to programs and classroom/student support. There are no other financially sustainable (year-to-year) options available to give our teachers and staff substantial raises without drastically cutting programs, support, and curriculum. Boundary changes won’t do it. Cutting district administration won’t provide enough extra dollars (and would actually make things worse for teachers and staff and building level admin). Solar panels won’t provide enough extra $. And we can’t keep hoping from year to year that our financial situation will change. We’ve been doing that and now our financial reserves are gone (hastened by the state legislature).
State level funding and the long history of attacks from the state legislature are not excuses. They’re the driving force behind a lot of this (along with society’s general undervaluing of public education). We have to change the makeup of the legislature. And the state funding formula must recognize and incorporate the value of neighborhood schools.
I covered some of this in my budget post from March (https://marcelharmon67.substack.com/p/lawrences-school-district-budget). Shannon has covered a lot of it on her page (https://www.kimballforschoolboard.org/faq). She’s shared a lot on her Facebook page over the last year. It’s been talked about a lot in board meetings and in the papers. Does the district always do a great job at communicating all of this? No, and it often makes me frustrated. But having been a board member I know that problem is largely contributed to by overworked staff and the way the budgeting process plays out year to year (driven by state and federal law). It’s also true that the community doesn’t always do a great job of staying informed (understandable given what many have on their plate day to day). So, when people do to start to pay attention, it’s often because of something that directly impacts them, but they then lack the history of what’s lead to the problem or issue.
I had seen that you left this comment, deleted it, then submitted it again (which I have no problem with wanting to spend more time thinking about what you want to say). There was one aspect of your comment that I thought deserved a general response, so I put something together on my Facebook page since I didn’t know if you would submit any other comment. It's too long to include with this reply, so I'll include in a reply after this.
Someone supporting Ariel Miner over Shannon posted a comment on my substack about this that I think needs a response in general. This person stated that the district needs to apply “some real ‘factory style’ analysis and justify EVERY 497 position by starting with an applicable question – ‘Do you touch the product?’, as in student-contact hours,” with that being part of the justification for spending less on administration or other areas of support.
And at the League of Women Voters’ school board candidate forum on Sept. 25, 2023 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEAwZR7AzoU&t=6s&ab_channel=LawrencePublicLibrary), Arial Miner at approximately the 34:54 mark, states the following: “Budget priorities for me would be no new programming for a bit and stabilize things. We have new teachers that need to get comfortable and need to feel supported. Keep our public dollars as close to the teachers the staff and the students as possible. Remove any waste from the budget. Get everyone to a living wage [of] sixteen dollars an hour. Complete financial transparency. Schools are underfunded on purpose in Kansas. It’s not an accident [and] it’s been happening that way for decades. We cannot afford to have leaders who have other agendas.”
In addition, in the Lawrence Times Meet the 2023 Lawrence School Board Candidates article (https://lawrencekstimes.com/2023/09/16/meet-2023-usd497-board-candidates/), Jody Myer stated “We have to stop blaming all our budget issues on the state and work efficiently and responsibly with the funds we have. We need to focus on the ABCs: Academics, Budget and Communication.”
The basic point seems to be if the district wasn’t so fiscally irresponsible, if the district would just focus on putting more dollars into the classroom and instruction (also to the building level, but a lesser degree), and stop wasting dollars on administrative salaries, curriculum updates, and other unnecessary expenditures, we wouldn’t have had to close Pinckney and Broken Arrow. Laying blame to inadequate state funding is just an excuse.
Anyone who’s been advocating for public education over the last 10+ years should recognize this as one of the basic talking points of ultracon politicians and anti-public education activists/lobbyists that they use to justify defunding public education. Districts are bloated, top-heavy, and don’t spend enough of their existing dollars on basic instruction.
Dave Trabert CEO of the Kansas Policy Institute, a Wichita-based nonprofit free-market think tank (and yes, IMO the word think should be in quotes), was recently (2023) quoted as saying “KPI has never advocated to reduce funding. We’ve certainly talked about how schools could operate more efficiently. We’ve talked about how some of their practices, like having cash balances grow year after year after year, indicate that they’re not even spending all the money they get. But we haven’t advocated to cut spending. We’ve found ways that they can save money and put savings in classrooms.” - https://heartlandernews.com/2023/04/10/school-board-members-can-actually-be-hampered-from-doing-their-jobs-by-an-entrenched-education-establishment-this-new-organization-is-here-to-help/. I’m ignoring the BS here about KPI never advocating to reduce funding and district cash balances because they’re not part of the point I’m trying to make.
Back in 2012 Trabert gave similar testimony along the lines of needing “to increase funds directly related to classroom instruction and reduce administrative expenses.” – https://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/oct/08/statehouse-live-governors-task-force-school-effici/. Though increasing funds meant moving a greater % of existing funds into the classroom, not actually increasing overall funding. In 2022 Trabert stated “But the [school funding] formula isn’t the problem [districts don’t need additional funding]. It’s how local officials decide to spend money that results in there being a lot of winners and losers.” - https://wichitabeacon.org/stories/2022/09/12/kansas-school-funding/.
In 2018, Kris Kobach proposed that 75% of district funding should go to the classroom (incredulously including capital expenses and bond-and-interest payments into the mix of the 100%), and that districts should cut administration and building spending to get there - https://www.kansas.com/latest-news/article220979095.html. In 2012 former Governor Sam Brownback was portrayed as shifting “the debate from a focus on raw dollars to how effectively those dollars are spent by appointing a school efficiency task force dominated by certified public accountants. He [Brownback] contends the state needs to do a better job of making sure its aid finances classroom instruction.” - https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/education/2012/10/15/analysis-education-funding-debate-hits-key-issues/16418453007/.
I could go on, but you get the picture. The message of these anti-pubic education politicians and activists isn’t really about providing more funding to the classroom – it’s about districts making do with the inadequate funding they currently have. Cut administration, nurses, custodians, facilities staff, food service workers, social workers, paras, librarians, school-based administration, extracurricular activities, farm-to-school programs, school gardens, etc., so that the percentage of $ to the classroom goes up (and the quality of public education goes down).
Teachers need to be well-paid with access to adequate resources in the classroom. They also need to be supported by an adequate number of building and district-wide administrators and other support staff who are also competitively paid to attract and keep them within the district. Students need access to these resources outside of the classroom, and this need for support has only grown over the last few decades as public schools are forced to take on other public services we’ve neglected as a society.
And if you’re complaining about district transparency now, just imagine what that transparency would look like with even less administrators present, struggling even more to deal with greater workloads, with even less time available to think about transparency. Adequate transparency requires an adequate number of people in place to do all of the work associated with sharing/communicating the intricacies associated with district goals, actions, data, etc.
Multiple public education advocates have laid this out in detail over the years – KASB, Game on for Kansas Schools, Educate Lawrence… Shannon herself has done so a lot over the years. But several of our school board candidates don’t seem to be as aware of this history. While I don’t think this is their intention, the messaging above from school board candidates plays right into the hands of these long-term goals of anti-public education forces - starve public school districts of necessary funds which force actions like school closures, program cuts, inadequate salaries, teacher/staff shortages, etc. This creates conflict at the local level and distracts from the bigger picture and what’s going on in Topeka as communities argue over limited recourses, point fingers at one another, and generally eat their own. All of which further damages these school districts.
Shannon is well aware of the bigger picture and its history, having battled anti-public education forces a lot during her tenure on the board. And there would likely be a fair number of anti-public education politicians and lobbyists who wouldn’t mind seeing her ousted from the school board. I think a fair number of our teachers recognize this as well, considering LEA has endorsed her (https://www.facebook.com/LawrenceEdAssoc/posts/pfbid0tQ87LpqapjWRf2dhfPeRYmPuQ75RibX7D8QPLf9U7Ui9z8aXkVJqDCk1uZoouJ34l), along with GR Gordon-Ross (whom I also support). Now I need to do my due diligence and decide who else I’ll be voting for.
Putting any of today's candidates in the frame of "right wing critics" just because they criticize the administration or incumbents seems inappropriate. No campaign for an incumbent seat has ever focused on persuading voters that "all is well - no need for change". MY suggesting a review of an apparently very costly school is not the the same as advocating for anything Kobach has spewed. Certainly Ariel Miner has nothing in common with the goals or methods of Mr. Kobach.
Shannon argues - "In 2020-2021, our smallest elementary school (199 students) cost $15,757 per student. Our largest elementary school that year (over 450 students) cost $9,485 per student." Is this an oversimplification, an deliberate exaggeration, or an admission of mismanagement by the incumbents? Smaller schools don't have to be this poorly managed, although the smaller neighborhood school advantages surely come at some premium.
First these schools-closings barely passed by a 1-vote margin, hardly a strong argument for validity nor savvy leadership. The finances and the plan to address the problems clearly weren't compelling to near half the board members. These are the best informed people in the district, who are also smart, dedicated people. When there is such a "hard pill" for the community to swallow, an experienced board works its way to consensus.
I have admiration for Shannon's efforts and no animosity. I simply think these school closings were unwise, were poorly explained, and we need new leadership for the next two years. Ariel Minor will take a fresh look. And I hope Shannon continues to advocate against the destructive Kobach-aligned forces in our State and beyond.
I didn’t say these candidates share the goals or philosophy of right-wing politicians or anti-public education activists. I believe that they are supporters of public education. I’m also glad that there are people out there who want to serve, and ultimately for the right reasons.
My point, however, was that by laying the blame of school closures at the feet of board members and district administration, by arguing that it’s ultimately because of gross mismanagement, bloated administration, and a lack of creativity – in the process ignoring the local/state history of how we got here, lacking an understanding of how district budgets and state/federal funding works (and associated laws/regulations), lacking an understanding of what it takes to successfully operate a district in order to educate and support students, as well as support teachers and staff (especially in terms of the number of district/building administrators and the myriad of other support staff required), lacking an understanding of what fills the day of all the individuals running, supporting, and teaching in a district – these candidates play right into the hands of right-wing politicians and anti-public education lobbyists.
They make the same attacks and they deliberately ignore what is actually required to equitably educate kids in a public education system as part of justifying those attacks. School board candidates, especially if they're pro public education, should be aware of this history and the broader context (and how these politicians would love to use such candidate criticisms to support their own statements and actions). It doesn’t mean you can’t criticize district administration and board members. Of course we need to hold them accountable. But that accountability (and proposed solutions) must take the contextual realities that districts operate within into account.
Your elementary school cost per student reference does not suggest poor management of the smaller neighborhood schools. There are a minimum number of staff required to operate a school building (some requirements related to state and federal law). Smaller schools will inherently cost more per student than larger schools. And when those smaller schools become increasingly underutilized compared to the larger schools (as a result of lower enrollments impacting them worse, for example), that delta in cost per student gets pretty big. Boundary changes if done to move students into these smaller schools, won’t result in enough cost savings (if any net savings by the time busing and staffing is accounted for) to keep the smaller schools open and still give teachers/staff a needed raise. Plus the district has spent years playing with staffing/services where they could (like sharing some staffing among schools) to help keep the schools afloat. And that also has a negative impact on students.
Yes, it was a 4 to 3 vote to close these two schools. I will note that none of the three who voted no had an actual plan to sustainably give teachers/staff a significant raise and keep the schools open without drastically cutting more programs and their staff (they were also three of the least experienced board members). These 3 were simply kicking the can down the road again, to the detriment of the district’s finances and district stability. In my opinion these three board members weren’t able to make the really hard decision and do what the data before them indicated was the best course of action for all of the district’s students. Nobody wanted to close these schools. But at this point, neighborhood schools require more money in the funding formula overall and likely a modifier that recognizes their broader benefit. Though at this point we’re not even fully funding districts per the formula.
You state that “… these school closings were unwise, [and] were poorly explained.” I actually agree. The closings were unwise relative to the benefits we’ve now lost and inequitably felt, as I’ve covered elsewhere and many others have talked about. But keeping them open would have been even more unwise for the district as a whole. And yes, aspects of this weren’t communicated well (as I’ve also covered elsewhere). But that is also strongly correlated with an inadequate number of administrators/staff needed to do the job of explaining/communicating, exacerbated by the nature of how budgeting/planning and data unfold or become available over the course of the school year.
Now the district needs to figure out how to mitigate the negative impacts of the school closings, avoid further closings if possible, begin to build back our contingency fund, continue planning for more raises and supporting teachers/staff, building back programs previously cut or minimized (in part to keep these schools open), and deal with the crud in Topeka while equitably educating/supporting our students. Shannon is better positioned to support these efforts than Ariel Miner. Most teachers would seem to agree as the LEA is publicly supporting her over Miner. But I hope Ariel Miner continues to stay engaged, educate herself more on public education/district operations within our state (and its history), and engage other public education advocacy groups that have been working for years locally and in the state.