West Perry Community Stakeholders

Analysis of the study

Below is an analysis of the 2025 feasibility study for West Perry School District.  The consultant has provided four different options for the board to consider. The study includes enrollment data and cost comparisons for different building scenarios.  The study was performed by EI Architects who have since been designated as the architect of record for the entire project.  

Enrollment Trends (What the Numbers Really Mean)

The Big Picture: Student enrollment has been steadily declining for 20 years, as it has for almost every public school district in Pennsylvania.

(Check out the enrollment data here)

• 2004-05: 2,847 total students

• 2024-25: 2,093 total students

• That's a 26% decrease - the district has lost over 750 students in 20 years.

• What doesn't this tell us? How many students have begun cyber schooling, or transferred to private schools?  There is likely to be a temporary drop in enrollment within the next 1-2 years due a significant decrease in live births in the school district.  

Grade Level Breakdown:

• Elementary (K-5): Dropped from 1,217 to 944 students

• Middle School (6-8): Dropped from 708 to 501 students

• High School (9-12): Dropped from 922 to 648 students

The Four Options Explained

Option 1: Status Quo (Keep the schools the community relies on)

• What it means: Keep all 3 elementary schools open, make the necessary repairs

• Cost: $35.96 million total project cost

• Annual cost to taxpayers: $3.83 million per year

• What you get: Minimal changes, maintains current structure

Option 2: Close One Elementary School

• What it means: Close Blain Elementary, keep 2 elementary schools with additions

• Cost: $35.75 million total project cost

• Annual cost to taxpayers: $3.34 million per year

• Savings: Closes one building, reducing operating costs

Option 3: Build New K-5 School

• What it means: Close all 3 elementary schools, build 1 new elementary school

• Cost: $59.55 million total project cost

• Annual cost to taxpayers: $3.15 million per year (after operational savings)

• Savings: $1.85 million annually in operational costs

Option 4: Reorganize All Grades (Board and Consultant's Apparent Preference)

• What it means:

  • Close all 3 elementary schools

  • Build new K-3 school

  • Move 4th-6th grades to middle school

  • Move 7th-12th grades to high school

• Cost: $77.05 million total project cost

• Annual cost to taxpayers: $4.35 million per year (after operational savings)

• Savings: $1.85 million annually in operational costs

Red Flags in This Analysis

1. Questionable Cost Structure

• Option 1 (community preference) shows no operational savings despite repairing/replacing boilers and HVACs as well as new energy efficient windows.

• Options 3 & 4 claim identical $1.85M operational savings, which seems suspicious

• The "cheapest" option (Status Quo) somehow costs more annually than options with major construction

2. Missing Critical Information

• No explanation of how operational savings were calculated

• No breakdown of what "Rank 1, 2 & 3" renovations actually include

• No justification for why keeping existing buildings has zero operational savings

3. Enrollment Reality vs. Recommendations

• With 26% enrollment decline, the push for the most expensive option (4) seems questionable

• Smaller enrollment typically supports consolidation, but not necessarily the most complex reorganization

Questions the Community Should Ask

1. How exactly were operational savings calculated? Why does keeping existing schools save $0 but building new ones saves $1.85M?

2. What specific renovations are included in each option? The rankings (1,2,3) are undefined.

3. Why is Option 4 being recommended when it costs twice as much as other options?

4. What happens to the closed school buildings? Sale value should offset costs.

5. How do these costs compare to doing nothing? What's the real cost of maintaining status quo?

Bottom Line for the Community

This feasibility study appears to be structured to make Option 4 (the most expensive) look like the best choice by:

• Making Option 1 appear to have no benefits

• Using identical savings figures for different options

• Not clearly explaining cost calculations