Lawrence's School District Budget Struggle
As we agonize and argue over neighborhood school closings, the real fight lies in Topeka
In Lawrence, KS, where I live, due to our state’s history of underfunding public education (as well as the structural nature of public education funding) and more recent trends in declining enrollments, exacerbated by the pandemic and attacks from GOP legislators and right-wing groups, we are facing yet another round of closing or repurposing some of our neighborhood schools. We seem to have limited options available if we’re to provide teachers with the long overdue raises needed to be competitive with surrounding districts, pay classified staff a living wage, and limit even more cuts to programs. This is extremely troubling, as adequately funded neighborhood schools offer significant benefits, and not just to the educational success of their students.
They’re often important third places within neighborhoods/communities, acting as a node or hub for connections and interactions that strengthen a community and increase its vitality. Assuming safe, walkable routes to the school are provided and maintained, walking to/from school also has a positive impact on health/wellness. The associated reduction in driving, and particularly idling for pickup/drop-off, also reduces GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and air pollution. Closing them has long-lasting, often net negative, impacts to their neighborhoods and communities (and to the larger cities they’re a part of). And those negative impacts are typically most acutely endured by communities already experiencing the most challenges.
I communicated as much to the school board prior to last Monday’s (2/27) school board meeting (full email at the end of this post), sharing some of what I thought the negatives would look like for the Woodlawn community and North Lawrence specifically. I asked that if they found themselves voting on a school closure for Woodlawn, Pinckney, and Broken Arrow Elementary Schools at some point in the next few weeks, and if they voted yes, that they be as confident as possible the projected net savings were accurate, the cuts/sacrifices within the district be distributed as fairly as possible, that the potential for new opportunities existed, and that the district would do everything possible to address the inequitable impacts of the resulting closures to families/students. I asked this because I think some additional closures of our neighborhood schools are likely inevitable at this point, despite what I know to be their significant benefits.
Some community members have called for cuts to administration to help save our schools. While it’s possible that some form of restructuring of administration could provide additional savings, or that a cut in administrative pay for those making more than $100,000 would help demonstrate some unity in sharing the costs, I doubt the savings here are substantial (especially if we want to maintain competitiveness with surrounding districts). But that should be made clear to the community.
Others have proposed the installation of solar panels to reduce utility costs and take advantage of those savings. With IRA funds available for schools to invest in solar and some of the capital costs associated with mechanical system improvements being taken care of by ESSER funds (and therefore freeing up some additional capital dollars that might have been allocated elsewhere), the district should definitely explore adding solar. In addition to reducing the district’s GHG emissions, it can potentially turn some of our school buildings into resilient community spaces, and it’s a great opportunity for integrating renewable energy and building operations into curriculum. The Maize school district can act as a source for both inspiration and direction here.
But the reduction in operational costs will likely have limited impact on our current budgetary crisis because building utility costs pale in comparison to the wages and benefits paid to district employees. Taking USD 497’s 2021-2022 expenditures available on KSDE’s website as an example, electricity costs for that year totaled about $2,453,000. Wages for fulltime teachers, other certified (licensed) staff, and classified staff totaled about $79,700,000. Assuming we could install enough solar panels to completely offset these electricity costs (a, shall we say, generous assumption), these savings would be about 3% of the 2021-2022 wages paid. Theoretically everyone could then get at most an average 3% raise as a result of these savings. That’s not enough to get our district’s classified staff to near a living wage or make teacher salaries more competitive with surrounding districts (let alone other professions).
Nor I have I seen other cost savings measures suggested capable of meeting the budget deficits or alternative funding sources proposed that are sustainable (existing year to year) moving forward. The district has been criticized for not working harder to come up with such solutions, but frankly, the constraints of school funding, the scope of what a school district is tasked to do, the bulk of district expenditures devoted to employee wages/benefits, and our declining enrollments limit what can be done.
I do think the concerns expressed regarding increased student time on buses and increased class-sizes and work loads distributed among the remaining teachers and staff are legitimate. As are questions about inequitable impacts and the accuracy of the net savings projected from the district’s proposal (though that’s been driven in part by the unknowns surrounding the boundary changes that would occur after the school closures). The district should further address those concerns and validate the net savings as the boundary committee works on the potential boundary changes. I also think fully penciling out what it would look like to close one or two of the larger west-side elementary schools may have increased the perceptions of transparency among some community members.
But in the end, our state’s school funding formula doesn’t recognize the full benefits of neighborhood schools (nor does society in general). Neighborhood and community vitality aren’t recognized. The disruption to, and emotional trauma experienced by, families and students as a result of such closures aren’t recognized. The economic benefits of local businesses that might fade away along with families in the neighborhood aren’t recognized. The reduction in particulate matter and other air pollution along with the associated positive impacts on health and cognition aren’t recognized. The health benefits resulting from walking to and from school aren’t recognized. These benefits and others associated with neighborhood schools and the costs of their closures don’t impact school “efficiency” as defined by funding formulas.
We’ve been bailing water out of the boat with a leaky bucket for years now trying to keep our neighborhood schools afloat. We’ve done this to the detriment of our contingency funds, teacher/staff pay, and certain programs (in the context of inadequate funding and decreasing enrollment). We’ve invested in their upkeep and major renovations. I’ve been part of that effort to keep and enhance those real, but unrecognized benefits, as a parent, community member, site council member, and school board member. It makes me sad and angry that this is where we now find ourselves.
However, had I still been on the school board I would have likely voted to have the hearings to close each of the proposed schools (including Woodlawn) so that, as a result of the boundary committee’s subsequent work, we could have had a better understanding of the additional costs and dollar savings associated with the closure of each. In the case of Woodlawn we would better understand if the additional costs to bus kids living less than 2.5 miles from their proposed new school across the river would offset the proposed closure savings. Because in all likelihood Woodlawn will be offered up again for closure next year (as well as the other two if the board votes not to close them this year).
The hearings will provide Lawrence an opportunity to hear from each of the neighborhoods what their schools mean to them and what it will mean to lose them, not just for the neighborhoods but for Lawrence overall. There will justifiably be anger, tears, and frustration; it will be raw. But it’s important that the very real, very negative consequences of school closures be loudly voiced, not just for Lawrence, but for the entire state. Because ultimately the fight isn’t in Lawrence. It’s in Topeka, with those working to defund public education and legislate it out of existence (along with transgender students).
While we understandably focus on USD 497’s immediate budget crisis, arguing over scarce resources created by Republican governors and legislators, past and present, the current legislature with a Republican super majority is busy working and passing legislation to further attack and undermine public education (some of which may get past our Democratic governor’s veto). Drawing our focus away from Topeka to these local conflicts is intentional. They want to distract us from their legislative actions that will in turn create additional local stress and conflicts.
This session there are voucher bills designed to expand eligibility for private school scholarship tax credits, siphoning money away from public schools in the process. One version, by the last year of its proposed phase-in, has students qualifying if their family earns up to 600% of the poverty level (currently $180,000 per year for a family of four). In addition, bills that crassly target the poor, such as the proposed flat tax, restricting access to food assistance, and criminalize homelessness ultimately add additional burdens to our public school districts via the increase in needs experienced by our lower SES students and families.
And Republican legislators continue ignoring calls to adequately fund public education, including the governor’s request to fully fund special education. For Lawrence, in 2021-2022, we had to take $10 million out of the general fund to cover the lack of adequate state funding for special education. The goal of these Republicans is to break public education. We shouldn’t forget that the origin story for voucher programs revolved around the goal of eliminating free public education and shifting the costs to parents.
This year’s version of the Parents Bill of Rights yet again attempts to usurp teacher and local district authority regarding what goes on in the classroom. It ignores an educator’s expertise and experience, limiting their ability to effectively teach as well as the quality of education provided to public school students. It’s one more slap in the face that influences a teacher’s decision to leave the profession.
Some of the most vile legislation are the bills attacking trans students, increasing the difficulty district’s face in supporting their trans students and creating accepting, safe learning environments. Bills that seek to “criminalize gender-affirming care, ban transgender athletes from competing with cisgender athletes, and narrowly define what it means to be a woman,” along with the hateful/hurtful accompanying rhetoric, are damaging. They decrease the physical safety of trans students within their communities and increase their levels of stress, anxiety, and depression, potentially leading to self harm (or worse). And school districts are left to address the fallout for their trans students as best they can, including addressing associated conflicts within their schools and community.
The goal is to eliminate, or at least greatly weaken, public education. We’re seeing it play out in Lawrence right now, right before our eyes. It’s playing out in other communities across the state, weakening them in the process. Neighborhood associations, local chambers of commerce, and local city/county governments from across the state should be banding together. They should be raising their voices in support of increased school funding, better teacher and staff pay, neighborhood (and rural) schools, and a redefinition of what “efficiency” means for school operations. We need state-wide efforts to vote the worst Republican legislators out of office. We need to act relative to the bigger picture and play the long game.
It’s the only way we’ll save our neighborhood schools, or at least save an opportunity to bring them back in the future.
Dear School Board Members,
I know you have some pretty tough decisions before you. Regarding the proposed elementary school closures and repurposing of LMCMS, I would ask that if you do cast a yes vote for this at some point that you are as sure as you can be that the projected savings are real, that cuts/sacrifices within the district are as fairly distributed as possible (including among administration while keeping obtainment of the district's ultimate mission in mind), that you see some new opportunities that could come from this, and that the district will do everything possible to address the inequitable impacts of the resulting closures to families/students.
Closing/repurposing these schools will have real negative impacts to Lawrence overall, and most certainly to the neighborhoods served by these schools. Our kids are Woodlawn and LMCMS alumni and we lived in North Lawrence for almost 12 years. Woodlawn is a defining characteristic of North Lawrence, a key third place of the neighborhood, bringing people together for activities beyond the school day. And it's a major component of the neighborhood's historical identity. Its closure will negatively impact North Lawrence's vitality in the years to come.
Closing more of our neighborhood schools will also work against the progress our community has made in terms of walkability. There will likely be a profound shift away from walking to busing/driving as a result of this, negatively impacting health as well as increasing GHG emissions and air pollution. Pickup/drop-off congestion will also likely increase at the remaining schools. And this will remove one of the "pressures" for adequately maintaining walkable sidewalks within these neighborhoods.
But I know the district is facing significant financial pressures as a result of the history of underfunding public schools, GOP attacks, and declining enrollment, exacerbated by impacts from the pandemic. Throw in the fact that our free market economic system doesn't recognize the value of neighborhood schools in general, and it's easy to see that we've really been fighting against the current to keep them. There is no ideal outcome here and some painful change is likely inevitable. Just try to make sure that the savings are real, that the costs are as equitably spread as possible, and that drastic changes could be reversed if circumstances change (i.e., enrollment bounces back in the coming years).
Thanks for all you do and for the sacrifices that you and your families make to provide service to our community.
Best,
Marcel Harmon