The vision of public education in Lawrence is being reshaped right before our eyes this year.

Members of the Lawrence school board have initiated what they hope will be a historic evaluation of school facilities in the district. They’ve hired DLR Group, an Overland Park consulting firm, to sort out academic necessities and bricks-and-mortar possibilities for the distribution and design of school facilities.

There are many questions.

“What are our priorities? What makes sense?” asked Don Sandall, a DLR Group executive from Portland, Ore.

In short, what will happen is this: DLR’s examination of the Lawrence schools, the multimillion-dollar reform package eventually embraced by the board, and the voting public’s opinion of that plan in November will determine the look of Lawrence schools for at least a decade.

Key questions boil down to community priorities and, in the end, what makes sense when investing millions of dollars in education.

l Should the district consolidate elementary schools? Or is 18 the right number of elementary schools for Lawrence?

The DLR Group's survey of Lawrence school district facilities is designed to help prepare a master

l Will the philosophy of neighborhood elementary schools, even those with 150 students or fewer, remain? Or will the norm become elementary schools with a minimum of 300 students?

l Should the district build a fifth junior high school to alleviate crowding? Or should it construct additions to junior highs with student overload?

l Can the community agree on what must be contained in a full-fledged elementary, junior high and high school building? Or will free-form development of schools remain the norm?

Anyone’s guess

By this time next year after all the votes have been taken, the money allocated and tears shed answers to those questions will be known by all.

Until it plays out, the district’s path is anyone’s guess.

“To the greatest extent possible, we enter this without preconceived notions,” said Sue Morgan, school board president. “We must remain open to all the possibilities. We must do that to be faithful to the process.”

A study of the district's facilities includes Central Junior High School the city's oldest junior high.

Of course, DLR Group won’t be working for free.

After months of closed-door discussions, the school board approved a consulting contract with the firm that could eventually cost taxpayers more than $4 million.

A precise accounting of DLR’s contingency fee for assessing the district’s facilities needs and successfully ushering a school construction bond issue past voters won’t be known until the end of the year.

However, board member Austin Turney estimated DLR could earn $4.1 million if the district floated a $33 million bond issue. That figure has been informally mentioned as an estimate of what it might take to tackle the district’s facilities inadequacies.

“My personal opinion is that it (fee) is not going to be a heck of a lot less,” Turney said.

Turney was part of a 6-1 majority that voted in favor of the DLR contract.

‘An opportunity’

Board member Jack Davidson cast the lone dissenting vote. He said the amount the district could end up spending on consultants was too high.

Davidson also said he was troubled that the board voted to close Grant School because of dwindling enrollment before completion of the facilities study.

“It seems to me we’ve already made decisions,” Davidson said.

Board member Mary Loveland said the consultants had the expertise the district requires to make the right decisions about schools. If handled properly, the study will produce a template for each building level. All schools will be measured against that standard, she said, and appropriate plans made to upgrade facilities.

“It represents an opportunity in the long run to save taxpayers money,” Loveland said.

Mick Lowe, the principal of West Junior High School and a Lawrence school administrator for more than 20 years, agreed with Loveland.

Hiring a consulting firm without ties to Lawrence is essential to producing an untainted evaluation of the district’s 27 schools and three support buildings, he said. Otherwise, he said, the whole process could get bogged down in political squabbling.

“It’s going to give us … professional expertise in trying to analyze all these issues,” Lowe said. “There’s so many interests involved in that process.”

Obvious problems

The contract was structured in a way that guaranteed DLR millions of dollars in program management and construction management work tied to the bond issue.

But Lawrence-area architectural firms will have an opportunity to submit proposals for all school construction and renovation, in accordance with local custom.

Finding places where money could be spent to improve Lawrence schools isn’t difficult.

Tours of any school Kennedy School, Central Junior High School and Lawrence High School, for example are instructive, said Tom Bracciano, the district’s director of facilities and operations. Some of the problems in the schools aren’t costly and wouldn’t be placed high on most priority lists, while others are breathtaking in cost and sorely needed.

Here’s a sample:

l So sprawling is the LHS campus that a $1,000 building map has been requested to assist directionally challenged visitors.

l Carpeting at Kennedy is shot and staff want it to be replaced for an estimated $80,000.

l Gyms at Central don’t have air conditioning. No sweat, if there’s $200,000 in the budget.

In all, Bracciano said, the district’s principals have identified $28 million in building improvements they think need attention over the next five years.

The more sophisticated DLR evaluation it hits everything from light bulbs and locker locations to libraries could easily result in a wish list as large as $100 million.

Weseman said there was no way Lawrence taxpayers could afford such a large school bond issue.

But, he said, if the district came up with a reasonable set of facilities benchmarks based on the community’s academic priorities, it would be possible to roll essential renovations and construction into a bond issue that voters would pass in November.

He said the product of work by consultants, board members and community members had to be focused on what was best for student learning.

“The academic program has to dictate the facilities we’re going to have,” Weseman said.