Lennox board hears MGT consolidation study pitch; consultants urge student-centered, slow process

Consultants from MGT told the Lennox School District Board of Education on Tuesday that declining enrollment requires a deliberate, student‑focused study of school consolidation options.

The board heard an overview from Craig McCulpin and Michael Taylor of MGT, who said the work’s purpose is “to develop a facility solution to mitigate the impact of declining enrollment” and to produce recommendations for the superintendent and the board. Taylor said, “this is a very tough subject” and repeatedly urged trustees to “keep students at the center” of decisions.

The presentation traced enrollment declines across the district and showed that the steepest decreases have occurred on the western side of the district. McCulpin said the firm recommends a three‑phase process: data verification and advisory committee formation; options development and community engagement; and, if the board decides to consolidate, a separate implementation phase. He estimated the study typically requires a six‑ to eight‑month runway, with some districts taking as long as 18 months.

MGT recommended that the superintendent establish an advisory committee of roughly 20 to 30 stakeholders — parents, teachers, classified staff, special‑education representatives and community members — to advise but not decide. McCulpin said the committee “serves in an advisory capacity only” and that final decisions would rest with the superintendent and the board.

Board members and parents pressed for more detail on how the study would comply with Assembly Bill 1912, a state law consultants cited repeatedly. McCulpin summarized the bill’s nine required metrics: “the condition of a school facility; operating cost and savings from closure or consolidation; capacity to accommodate students; availability of special programs; environmental factors such as traffic; balance of pupil demographics; transportation needs; aesthetics and opportunities for light; and impact on feeder school attendance patterns.” He also said the district must consider an attorney‑general letter that interprets AB 1912.

Several trustees emphasized process and timeline. One trustee said the district must do both internal school program improvements and the external facility analysis in parallel rather than waiting for the study to finish. A parent speaker, Senor Grandes, thanked MGT for the “great presentation” but urged the district to evaluate local traffic, demographic balance and the fate of site assets including solar panels and easements.

Trustees repeatedly urged a slow approach that preserves community identity. Multiple board members said they were not asking for decisions at the meeting; instead they wanted data, community outreach and time to examine root causes such as housing turnover, birth‑rate trends and COVID‑era shifts.

MGT and district staff said they will return with a proposed schedule, a plan for the superintendent’s advisory committee, and a communications plan for public updates. No board motion to close or consolidate any school was offered or taken at the meeting.

The district’s next steps, according to MGT, include verifying demographic and enrollment data, convening the advisory committee, running community meetings and producing draft recommendations for board consideration.

The presentation and the following discussion made clear that any future consolidation proposal will include detailed review of AB 1912 metrics, careful community outreach and separate implementation steps if closures are recommended.