Past decisions play role in CR schools’ current problems

If you’ve been saying in recent months or years that the Cedar Rapids Community School District has been spending too much money on fancy consultants, it might please you to know that the district has made – albeit tacitly at best – an admission:

You’re right.

Their tacit admission comes in the form of drastic cost-cutting measures taken amid the drama of a $10-$12 million deficit for the next school year, roughly half of which can be attributed to declining enrollment.

The most consequential changes, of course, will be the closing of at least five district schools, allowing the district to reallocate resources by “right-sizing” the building inventory. Over 200 residents packed the room on Jan 12 to voice their frustration at a board meeting and work session that lasted until 10:44 p.m.

The board will vote Jan. 26 on a facilities proposal. First, it will vote tomorrow night on measures such as reductions to consulting contracts and professional development travel and further staff reductions at the Educational Leadership and Support Center.

Proposed cuts include $1.3 million from the district’s contract with Instructional Empowerment, one of several consulting firms to which Superintendent Dr. Tawana Lannin – formerly Grover – has professional ties from her previous employment, as previously reported in this column.

Other proposed cuts include $400,000 in other consulting expenses, $75,000 in food-related purchases and $250,000 in district travel – numbers that, frankly, leave me with only more questions about just what exactly the district has been doing on your dime.

The proposed reductions in travel and consulting expenditures will be for the 2026-27 budget. But let’s give credit where credit is due: the district has already begun cutting back on travel expenses this year.

Three months ago, this column reported that as many as six CRCSD leaders were scheduled to attend a three-day conference in early February at a Times Square Hotel in New York City. The conference is hosted by District Management Group, an East Coast consulting firm with which CRCSD signed contracts worth almost a million dollars in just the last few years. The bulk of those expenditures were for staffing recommendations that coincided with the large reduction in staffing last summer.

The board had approved President Jennifer Neumann and Vice President Scott Drzycimski as delegates to the DMGroup conference. In addition, information on the event website indicated that Lannin and three executives from her cabinet would attend, for a total of six from CRCSD.

However, the district told The Gazette Tuesday that it had “adjusted its attendance” for the conference as a cost-cutting measure.

“While the original plan included a larger delegation of leadership and two Board members,” the district stated in an email, “we have narrowed attendance to a single representative. (District Deputy and Chief Financial Officer) Karla Hogan will be the sole attendee, as she has been invited to present at the summit.”

It's unclear how recent this decision was. As of late Monday evening, DMGroup’s website still listed six CRCSD leaders as attendees of the upcoming summit. It also listed both Hogan and Dr. Lannin as presenters at a seminar during the conference.

  Buy Photo

By Wednesday, Hogan was the sole attendee from CRCSD listed on the conference website. Lannin’s name and picture appeared to have been removed from the list of presenters.

According to the DMGroup website, the Hogan-led seminar will examine how CRCSD used an earlier budget deficit as a “catalyst” for staff reductions. First reported by this column in November, the seminar will “offer a blueprint for how other districts can transform fiscal crises into opportunities for deep, lasting organizational change.”

Whatever the cost for the DMGroup summit – records for transportation and hotel bookings were not yet available – it will be significantly less with one CRCSD representative than with a delegation of up to six.

That said, the district still has no business sending any of its executives to lead the CRCSD-focused seminar – even if 100% of the expenses should be covered by DMGroup.

To CRCSD families fretting over impending school closures, a district executive boasting about staffing reductions as a measure of success to a pricey consulting firm’s paying audience seems, above all else, a slap in the face.

Optics such as those may help explain why some CRCSD residents would happily gut positions from what they see as a bloated district administration. Call it a DOGE-ing of the district, if you will.

Those residents should consider, though, what administrative reductions look like when done in haste.

For example, after the district reduced administrative positions by 11% last summer, CRCSD was left without a single dedicated leader overseeing the academic affairs of the district. With the elimination of the chief academic officer position, the district has split up the functions of the Office of Academics primarily among its three chiefs of schools, potentially fragmenting decision-making processes that should instead be streamlined.

The chief of schools positions were three of eight for which substantial pay increases were proposed last summer, listed in July 14 personnel report that also included standard raises for other district employees. The report was rejected in a 4-3 vote of the school board. Then-board member Jennifer Borcherding was the strongest critic of the eight administrators’ proposed increases, the speed of the changes to administrative duties and the lack of discussion before the public to justify them.

Since then, only one person serving in one of the eight expanded executive positions has received their proposed pay increase. In September, the board approved a personnel report that included a 12.7% salary increase for Ryals Parker, Area 2 chief of schools whose duties as the previous executive director of behavior supports were absorbed into his new role as Area 2 chief of schools.

Previously, Parker’s salary was $145,365. His new salary of 163,801 is comparable to the $164,750 earned by his two chief of schools counterparts in FY2025 – but less than the $177,505 salary initially proposed for all three chiefs of schools.

As for the other seven administrative positions left off the revised July personnel report, the administrators filling those positions have absorbed the responsibilities – and the workload – of the positions that were eliminated over the summer, without the expected pay raise. Six months later, the board still has not been presented with a personnel report that includes those positions or discussed the matter in open session.

Giving sizeable pay raises to some while giving others the boot is in no way ideal. But if the district seeks a smoother path forward, that won't happen through making top administrators assume extra duties without additional pay.

So what is the plan here? How does a school district drop a cool half-million on a two-year“organizational health journey” only to then put their top executives in such unhealthy positions?

Speaking of unhealthy positions ...

Hogan is one of the eight CRCSD executives with an expanded role whose proposed pay raise is stalled. In addition to her position as chief financial officer, Hogan had the role of “district deputy” added to her duties amid last summer’s staffing reduction.

Lannin told The Gazette in June that the district deputy would serve as her “second in command,” thus implying that Hogan’s leadership responsibility extends districtwide.

Yet Hogan is only licensed as a school business official, according to the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners. While she is authorized under Iowa law to oversee the financial operations of a school district, Hogan does not possess a professional administrator’s license or even a teaching license. Source: https://iowaboee.my.site.com/LicenseSearchDetailPage?licenseId=003t000000I43z3AAB]

If Lannin were to suddenly be unable to serve as superintendent, Hogan could not legally step into the role even on an interim basis, making her a puzzling choice to serve as Lannin’s stated second in command. Especially given the experience and credentials of most other members of Lannin’s executive cabinet, at least three of whom are licensed with superintendent endorsements.

Factors such as these point to a crisis within the Cedar Rapids school district that extends deeper than declining enrollment or the loss of funding that accompanies it. Decisions and actions by district leadership – both in the administration and school board level – date back several years.

And residents have made clear their lack of trust.

The next few weeks and months will involve some difficult decisions on the district’s part. If they don’t make the right ones, some families will make difficult decisions of their own: the decision to seek an education elsewhere.

Comments: 319-343-8222; althea.cole@thegazette.com