Let's Talk Optimizing Our Future!

Q. How do you view the district’s “Optimizing Our Future” process for addressing declining enrollment and building closures? What would you have done similarly or differently?

A. I view the Optimizing Our Future process as a necessary step to rightsizing with a deeply flawed execution.

What I would have done similarly: I acknowledge the reality of declining birth rates meaning we could not maintain the current physical footprint forever. The district was correct to initiate a review of facilities and capacity. Ignoring empty seats is not fiscally responsible.

What I would have done differently: The entire process felt like a rushed exercise in 'managed decline, 'cutting aggressively to match declining enrollment, rather than a strategic pivot to long term district health.

My biggest critique is the lack of genuine transparency in the decision-making process. The 'listening sessions' and community feedback gathering felt performative, with the final plan revealed too late for meaningful community analysis or feedback.

Decisions such as O.O.F. should, at minimum, require the following:

1.Release the Data First: Before proposing closures, share the raw data on enrollment projections, building repair costs, and capacity utilization with the public.

2.Define Success: I would have clearly defined what 'optimizing' meant. Was the goal solely budget reduction or was it academic improvement? The two were often confused and though academic programming was certainly mentioned in talks, the end result does not show true concern for academics over budgets.

3.Scenario analyses: I would have required data modeling on the negative impact of closures. How many families would leave the district entirely if their neighborhood school closed? You can’t calculate savings without calculating the resulting revenue loss from lost enrollment, not to mention how decisions will affect students.

Q. What criteria should the board use when deciding whether to close, repurpose, or sell school buildings?

A. Closing a school is a permanent decision with multi-generational impacts on a neighborhood. It should never be based solely on a short-term budget shortfall or maintenance costs.

The board needs a well defined process utilizing quantifiable outcomes. For example, I would suggest implementing the following criteria with a weighted value on each when facing building closure considerations:

1. Academic Programming: Does this building house a unique program that draws families to Waukesha? For example, closing a school with a thriving, specialized program (like Dual Language or a specific Academy) is counterproductive because it disrupts and/or erodes a competitive advantage that attracts revenue.

2. Long-Term Financial Impact: We must look beyond immediate operational savings. We need to analyze the long-term cost of empty buildings, versus the potential revenue of selling a property, while also considering additional annual cost factors, such as transportation.

3. Enrollment Density and Trends: Where are the students actually living, and what are the 5 to 10-year projection trends for each specific neighborhood?

4. Community Impact: Schools are often the heart of a neighborhood and we need to weigh the demographic equity of closures to ensure we aren't disproportionately destabilizing specific communities.

Q. What lessons do you think can be learned in how recent changes were communicated and implemented?

A. The primary lesson learned is that the value of trust cannot be overstated and the OOF process severely eroded it.

The communication strategy felt designed to 'sell' a predetermined outcome rather than engage partners in a difficult reality.

The biggest failures were timing and clarity. Parents and staff felt blindsided by the speed of final decisions and the confusing nature of redistricting maps and transportation plans. When you mess with someone's child’s daily routine and stability, you cannot communicate vaguely. Answers should have been determined before implementation instead of implementing a plan and figuring out the rest later.

Pair this with the embarrassingly poor communication after changes were decided and it’s no wonder that trust in the district has eroded to be nearly non-existent.

The lesson going forward is that transparency must come first. We cannot wait until a plan is finalized to share it. We need to communicate why decisions are needed months before we communicate what those decisions ultimately are.

Future changes require clear, digestible data presented honestly. We should be treating parents like intelligent stakeholders who can understand hard choices if you show them the math. We need to stop pretending cuts are 'optimizations' and start having honest conversations about very real trade-offs.