Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Redesign Models topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community Coalition presents three redesign options as district seeks to close a $13M gap
Summary
Community Coalition members and district staff presented three conceptual school‑redesign models — intermediate (5‑6/7‑8), 5‑8 variants, and a junior‑high/2‑high‑school model — that aim to balance capacity, expand preschool and arts access, and achieve multimillion‑dollar savings; the board made no decisions and will collect community survey responses before next action.
At a special work session on Jan. 26 the Cedar Rapids Community School District’s Community Coalition and executive leaders presented three conceptual models to ‘right‑size’ the district and address nearly $13 million in proposed budget reductions.
Superintendent Dr. Lammon framed the review as a multi‑year effort that predates recent crises and said the board had already taken steps last week to reduce the budget by almost $13 million. He reiterated a commitment that no school consolidations would begin for the 2026–27 year and said the night’s purpose was to present community‑vetted options and gather input.
District staff and coalition members outlined guardrails used in vetting: use the district’s existing building inventory, seek meaningful cost savings, preserve move‑in‑ready facilities where possible, and prioritize family priorities such as preschool access, fine arts and competitive athletics.
Intermediate model (5‑6 and 7‑8): Jason Klein and Jocelyn Hanna described two variants of a 5‑6/7‑8 intermediate approach. Their analysis showed closing roughly six elementary schools in either variant and estimated about $6 million in annual savings from consolidations and staffing efficiencies. Presenters argued the model would allow full‑time fine‑arts specialists in every appropriate building and more consistent feeder patterns for K–12 progression.
5‑8/5‑6 variants: A coalition team presented variants that mirror the intermediate approach but emphasize neighborhood proximity and transportation savings. Presenters said these variants could reduce student travel times and preserve some community cohesion while still supporting expanded preschool placement across elementary sites.
Two‑high‑school (junior‑high + 10–12) model: A third group proposed consolidating to two 10–12 high schools with junior high (7–9) feeders; that configuration projected about $8,000,000 or more in savings from building‑utilization and staffing consolidation. Proponents argued it would concentrate resources for CTE, AP and extracurricular programs and make the district more competitive with larger nearby districts, while acknowledging significant community resistance to eliminating a high‑school identity.
Board members asked detailed questions about capacity math, boundary timelines, teacher licensure implications and special‑education continuity. Presenters repeatedly said boundary redesign would follow any model selection and that detailed staffing, transportation and special‑education studies would be part of next steps.
No model was advanced for adoption at the session. The district will post supporting materials online, launch a formal survey for community input and return to the board with survey results at the regular Feb. 9 meeting.
