Laramie County school district issues another statement regarding school closures; parents 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 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, the Wyoming State Construction Department 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.”
This story was published on April 2, 2025.