Latest news with #MCER
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
LCSD1 addresses MCER misconceptions, parents continue to push back
CHEYENNE – Following continued frustration from the broader community, Laramie County School District 1 and its Board of Trustees released a new statement late Friday regarding a controversial Most Cost-Effective Remedy (MCER) study. In the statement, the board and LCSD1 administration attempted to 'dispel misinformation' and clarify what the board knew prior to voting through a plan that will effectively close eight schools in the district. 'The board firmly supports our district staff and the role they played in the MCER study,' the statement reads. 'It is vital to clarify that there was no collusion or ulterior motives influencing the outcome. Every step taken was aimed at addressing the challenges faced by our district and finding viable, fiscally responsible solutions.' The district reiterated promises to prioritize the needs of the district and quality education. The MCER study, adopted by board members in October of last year, proposed implementing Remedy 4, which will close eight elementary schools in LCSD1 in order to fund essential maintenance for several of the remaining schools. The remedy also allows the district to build two new schools, including a new Arp Elementary, whose students have been displaced since the fall of 2023. The decision was met with widespread outrage, which accumulated in a petition signed by more than 1,000 people and a lawsuit being filed against the State Facilities Commission (SFC), the Wyoming State Construction Department (SCD) and the state of Wyoming. 'While we understand that some in the community were surprised and upset about the recommendation to build four new elementary schools while closing eight smaller, aging schools over the next decade, we believe that the ire and negativity directed at those that took part in the MCER on behalf of the district is unfair and misplaced,' the statement reads. While the statement said there will be four new schools, Remedy 4 calls for building two new schools and addressing facility concerns in five schools, whether that be replacing those schools or building additions to the facilities. The proposed changes would take place over the next 10 years. District involved Despite the statement's attempt to clarify the district's intentions with the study, parents remain frustrated with the lack of transparency in the process. 'The Board of Trustees say they appreciate the ongoing concern and conversation regarding the future of school buildings,' Abigail Boudewyns, an LCSD1 parent, shared via email. 'The Board, however, has had no conversations with parents, nor made any effort to engage with parents on these issues. Despite what the Board of Trustees might believe, conversations cannot be had during a one-sided, three-minute public comment.' Boudewyns wrote the district has opted 'to avoid parents by hiding behind lawsuits and abdicating its statutory responsibilities to unelected staff,' rather than engage in conversation with parents. A parent and former second-grade teacher, Murphy Booth, reiterated Boudewyns' concern about the district, adding that the board is meant to represent the public and their needs. 'I'm still disappointed that the board is acting like an arm of the district instead of an arm of the public,' Booth said. 'I think that's still my biggest sadness after reading this (statement).' Many parents believe alternative remedies in the study would have allowed the district to both keep the eight schools slated to close and build a new Arp Elementary. This was further substantiated when the Cheyenne Parent Alliance released a statement claiming that stakeholders, including the district, intended to use the MCER study to close schools. The news release included a video compiled from meetings between the district, the SCD and consulting firm FEA dating back to January 2024. '(The video) shows LCSD1 administrators, along with the SCD, actively shaped the MCER process and advocated for eliminating elementary schools, rather than pursuing necessary renovations or replacements,' according to the release. The board challenged this in its statement, saying that it wanted to dispel the narrative that it wasn't informed/provided updates as the MCER proceeded. 'The Board received updates throughout the MCER process about the different types of remedies being considered,' the statement reads. 'However, many of the trustees were surprised at the final decision that was brought forward that was broader and presented as an all-or-nothing option in order to receive the funding for the much-needed buildings. While the administration was involved in many conversations throughout the process, ultimately it was the responsibility of the state's third-party consultant to determine the most cost-effective remedy.' The board and administration maintained that they did not receive the final MCER, nor were they aware of the consultant's ultimate recommendation, until the end of the process. Once received, the MCER was immediately posted on the district's website for public review. Over the past several years, district staff have made numerous presentations to the Board of Trustees, community members and others to 'help garner awareness of the district's facility funding needs and plans to consolidate many of its aging facilities,' according to the latest LCSD1 statement. Those presentations and district MCER studies determined the district's priorities, such as continuing the 5-6 grade configuration model, phasing out older buildings to reduce the district's major maintenance burden, relieve staffing issues and consolidate design remedies. Additionally they discussed a need for three new buildings in the South triad. 'These board-approved priorities were brought forward by district staff to the most recent state-funded MCER,' the statement reads. Parents still opposed Despite the district's statement, some parents are still perturbed by the lack of transparency and public input, an issue they've been stating since the study was released in October. 'The mass-closing of schools is one of the most important issues a district can face,' Boudewyns wrote. 'Yet, these school closures received zero public engagement. The trustees cannot continue to be a captured board, acting as passive bystanders as the district administration shuts down a third of its neighborhood schools. This district deserves leaders.' Parents were also concerned that the district has now stated that they were informed, as board members stated they were 'just as shocked' as the public was when they voted in October. 'As a parent, I am extremely upset by the lack of transparency and blatant disregard the district has shown throughout this entire process,' parent and former educator Fallon Bonomo shared in a written statement. 'They have gone out of their way to keep parents and community members in the dark – just look at the rushed timeline as proof of that. The study was released, and in less than a week, the board voted on it. There was no adequate time for parents and community members to analyze and challenge this drastic overhaul of our education system.' Booth said the statement won't deter her from continuing to speak out. Several parents have continued to use public comment during board meetings to speak with the district about the MCER. 'As long as there's still an option to save these schools, I will never stop,' Booth said. 'This type of statement just shows me that they're doubling down even more … and trying to make it seem equitable by closing schools instead of bringing all schools back up to appropriate condition levels.' Parents are continuing to demand the board 'do their job' and represent the voters. 'Reconsidering a decision and changing course because you've heard the will of the people doesn't make you look weak – it does the opposite,' Bonomo wrote. 'It shows integrity, leadership and respect for the community you serve. But forcing through an unwanted plan despite overwhelming opposition suggests a desire to control, rather than collaborate, a disregard for the voices of those you represent, and a failure to put students and families first.'
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge denies state's motion to dismiss MCER lawsuit
CHEYENNE — The state's motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the final agency action in a Laramie County School District 1 Most Cost-Effective Remedy (MCER) study has been denied. Laramie County District Court Judge Peter Froelicher denied the motion to dismiss the lawsuit Tuesday, based on the court's determination that the state did not establish any procedural defect or lack of timeliness on the part of the petitioners. On Nov. 7, 2024, the School Facilities Commission (SFC) ruled in favor of remedy 4 of the MCER study, which will effectively close eight elementary schools in LCSD1. The SFC decision was supported by a similar vote in favor of remedy 4 by the LCSD1 Board of Trustees in October. According to district officials, the closures will free up funding for essential maintenance for several of the remaining schools and allow the district to build two new schools, including a new Arp Elementary, whose students have been displaced since the fall of 2023. The eight schools that would be closed are Miller (2025), Deming (2026) and Jessup (2027) elementary schools in the Central triad; Hebard, Bain, Fairview and Lebhart (all in 2029) elementary schools in the South triad; and Henderson Elementary School (2033) in the East triad, according to the report. The decision sparked heated debate among the local community, as many parents and teachers opposed the study's conclusions due to the lack of community input. Within a month of the SFC's final decision, Katie Dijkstal, a Jessup parent, and Franz Fuchs, a soon-to-be Deming parent, filed a petition to review the final agency action against the SFC, the Wyoming State Construction Department and the state of Wyoming. 'Petitioners generally argue that the SFC's decision to adopt Remedy 4 was: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and/or not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction; and (4) unsupported by substantial evidence,' according to court documents. In response to the petition, the defendants, referred to as 'the State' in court documents, filed a motion to dismiss on Feb. 7. This led to petitioners filing a response opposing the motion, which prompted another response from the state. Once the court determined the parties did not want a hearing on the motion to dismiss, Froelicher took the motion under advisement. He found that the case law the state had cited in its motion was irrelevant to the petition for review. The state argued that the petition should be dismissed because Dijkstal and Fuchs lack standing, the petition is untimely, and the petitioners failed to include a necessary party, referring to LCSD1. The state argued that Rule 12(b), W.R.C.P. (Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedures), is applicable to petitions for judicial review of agency action and cited two cases, Moose Hollow Holdings LLC v. Teton County Board of CCounty Commissioners and Miller v. Wyoming Department of Health, according to court documents. 'Neither of those cases expressly holds that Rule 12(b), W.R.C.P, is applicable to petitions for judicial review of final agency action,' Froelicher wrote in his decision. 'Neither of those cases even address the question of the applicability of Rule 12(b), W.R.C.P. to petitions for judicial review of final agency action filed in a district court.' Due to several similar flaws in the state's motion to dismiss, the motion was ultimately denied.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Parents Alliance claims closing schools was the intent with MCER study
CHEYENNE — Zoom-recorded meetings show that administrators in Laramie County School District 1 were considering closing schools as an alternative in the controversial Most Cost-Effective Remedy as early as March 2024. Wednesday afternoon, the Cheyenne Parent Alliance released a statement saying they are 'deeply disappointed in the Laramie County School District 1 (LCSD1) administration, which appears to have driven the outcome of the Most Cost-Effective Remedy (MCER) study to justify closing eight neighborhood elementary schools in Cheyenne.' The news release included a video compiled from meetings between the district, the State Construction Department (SCD) and consulting firm FEA dating back to January 2024. The meetings were part of the process that led to the MCER report, which was released in October. '(The video) shows LCSD1 administrators, along with the SCD actively shaped the MCER process and advocated for eliminating elementary schools, rather than pursuing necessary renovations or replacements,' according to the release. The district pursued the MCER study following an appropriation of approximately $82 million from the Legislature in the 2023 and 2024 sessions. The funds were appropriated for one grades 5-6 and two grades K-4 facilities in the South triad. District officials said they intended to replace Arp and Cole elementary schools and build a new grades 5-6 facility. Doing so would subsequently take Hebard, Lebhart, Fairview and Bain elementaries 'offline,' meaning they could no longer be used for educational purposes. However, the final MCER proposed closing eight schools across the district in order to fund essential maintenance and build two new schools. The plan, which was voted through by both the LCSD1 Board of Trustees and Wyoming's School Facilities Commission (SFC), sparked outrage among parents who protested the lack of public input, claiming there were other options in which no schools had to be closed. Two parents filed a lawsuit in Laramie County District Court, asking a judge to review the final agency actions of the SFC and SCD. Additionally, parents worked to obtain Zoom recordings of the MCER development meetings. Those videos called into question the district's claims that they were uninterested in closing schools and resulted in the video sent out Wednesday. 'The District understands and appreciates that parents feel passionately about the education of their children, and that the decision to take schools offline feels very personal to the affected families,' LCSD1 Community Relations Director Mary Quast told the WTE via email. 'The District did not go into the MCER with an intent to shut down facilities. However, with aging school buildings and declining enrollment across the district, the job of the administration is to recognize that sometimes in order to be good stewards of public funds, it is no longer feasible to keep all buildings operational.' Save neighborhood schools The alliance distilled more than 30 hours of district meetings and hundreds of emails into a 32-minute video, which they felt demonstrated the district's objectives. 'The only 'objective' set by the district was to ensure equity across the district and to be good stewards of public funds and facilities,' the district told the WTE via email. The videos show administrators discussing options and expressing 'hopes' of closing schools to save on staffing and limit the number of times the district has to go to the Legislature asking for funds. The alliance has been active since October, when the board concurred with the study. Since then, their goal has been to save Miller, Deming, Jessup, Hebard, Bain, Fairview, Lebhart and Henderson from being 'offlined.' Parents emailed the video to the board earlier this week, writing, 'You have a clear logistical and legal pathway forward to preserve schools for all students, families and staff in this district. Time is of the essence, as teachers and families at affected schools may already be making plans to prematurely jump ship.' Wednesday's email reiterated a desire to be a part of the solution, claiming their objective is to 'save schools and preserve the educational integrity of our district for years to come.' Sparse funding In a July meeting, one district administrator, who couldn't be identified from the video, said, 'I was in hopes of, whatever our remedy is here, we get rid of some of these old schools. … Probably two huge reasons: Money/staffing; and then simply, I don't want to keep coming down here every year asking for money to fix things up.' Money for building upkeep comes from the state, and a state Construction Department employee noted in one meeting that obtaining funds for major projects has not been easy. 'Every renovation that no longer needs to happen because the school's now offline, every boiler that doesn't blow up because it's offline and we don't have to divert major maintenance to it, all of the eventual remedies that these schools would need to come offline stack up,' LCSD1 Superintendent Stephen Newton said in an April meeting. 'It's hard to predict how much we we would need to invest in those schools.' The final MCER does spread out construction and offline dates over several years in hopes of making funds more obtainable, with all projects being completed over the course of a decade. Though the stated intent of the district was to efficiently and equitably use its funds to better the quality of education, the Parent Alliance pointed out that this study is unprecedented in its results. It is rare for a MCER study to cause the closure of a school, let alone eight, the group said. Public comment The alliance's news release claimed that the administration knew its decision to close eight schools would be 'massively unpopular throughout the community, and they appeared to obscure both their involvement in the process and the recommendations they put forward.' 'We believe that decisions about our children's schools — and the core structure of our community — should be made openly and honestly,' said Katie Dijkstal, a Jessup parent who is one of the parents to file the lawsuit. 'Any school district administration should want to hear from their constituents, and should value and appreciate feedback as they manage public property and educational facilities for students.' Video evidence shows that the district and SCD were asked in March if they wanted public comment, as other districts previously conducting MCERs had asked for such input. While acknowledging that there are smaller schools that would be good candidates for taking offline, Chairman and Principal of FEA Bill Small noted to the district and SCD representatives during a March 2024 meeting that offlining any school will result in backlash. 'You say, 'We're going to close some schools,' and the community blows up and nothing goes forward,' Small said. It is unclear when the final decision about public comment was made, but ultimately LCSD1 took none. The school board was only involved in the final vote on whether to accept or reject the remedy. 'The state's process for facility ranking and having an outside group conduct a MCER study does not incorporate a school board's wishes until the time a board has to vote on the findings of the MCER study,' board chairwoman Alicia Smith said via email. 'The board was aware our district administration was having conversations with the SFC to advocate for new facilities and regarding the condition and capacity issues of our existing facilities.' The Parent Alliance had four major claims in their release: School closures were the goal, cost savings dominated the process, public involvement was deliberately limited, and trustees were given limited information in order for the administration to achieve the desired goal of closing schools. 'The video seems to capture discussions about circumventing public meetings by splitting information into multiple smaller, non-public sessions, limiting community oversight and transparency,' according to the release. 'All while acknowledging that the public would not agree with the recommendations.' The alliance claims that the board was misled regarding their options with the MCER, a claim echoed in the lawsuit against the SFC and SCD. 'The LCSD1 board appears to have been misled about their ability to challenge the closures and their decision on the MCER,' the release reads. 'The study recommendation was messaged to the board as a 'take it or leave it' deal.' Lawsuit Though separate from the alliance, the lawsuit petitioning the state district court to review the final agency actions of the SFC and SCD makes similar points. The suit, filed by Dijkstal and Franz Fuchs, a soon-to-be Deming parent, claims that the MCER violates the state constitution. Initial filings also claim that the final decision was made without sufficient information. The Wyoming Constitution provides for equal and quality education, which has been supported by case law since 1995. This right was reaffirmed by Laramie County District Judge Peter Froelicher in his ruling last week on a suit filed by the Wyoming Education Association (WEA) and eight school districts, including LCSD1, against the state in 2022. Frolicher's 186-page decision said that the Wyoming Legislature has been unconstitutionally underfunding public schools and ordered the state to remedy the issue. Froelicher is also overseeing the MCER lawsuit, which claims that the remedy violates Wyomingites' 'constitutional right to an equal and quality education because it closes eight historically provided neighborhood elementary schools and forces students into distant, significantly larger schools.' While not involved in the MCER lawsuit, the district did note that they doubted the WEA decision would immediately impact the implementation of the chosen remedy. 'While the district appreciates and agrees with the Court's findings, it also recognizes that the decision is subject to appeal,' Quast wrote in her email to the WTE. 'Even if the decision is not appealed, the district also recognizes that it is the State's responsibility to determine how to address these deficiencies, and the Court did not dictate a particular remedy. While the District looks forward to the State addressing these deficiencies, it does not appear that the decision has any immediate effect on the funding or evaluation processes.' The SFC and SCD filed a motion to dismiss the MCER lawsuit due to 'a lack of statutory standing,' claiming that the petitioners weren't able to allege a statutory or constitutional violation. The petitioners responded by opposing the motion for dismissal, claiming that petitions for review of agency action are not subject to dismissal according to Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedures. Additionally, they claimed to have standing to petition the final actions of the SFC. A decision on the case's dismissal has yet to be filed in Laramie County District Court.
