Open letter asks BASD for consistent financial comparison and transparency about how scenarios are selected for deeper evaluation

BETHLEHEM, Pa., Oct. 27, 2026 — More than 100 Bethlehem Area School District students, parents, residents, taxpayers, educators, and community leaders have signed an open letter asking BASD to establish whether school closures are necessary through a transparent, district-wide analysis before narrowing the options under consideration.

The letter, “Closure Discussions Are Moving Ahead of the Evidence,” asks BASD to respond in writing to six priorities for the District Design Process. Those priorities address examining reasonable financial alternatives, determining the full financial effects of closure, comparing schools consistently over the long term, and accounting for neighborhood impacts.

The organizers welcome BASD’s continued statements that decisions have not been predetermined. Their broader concern is that some schools entered the District Design Process with greater public scrutiny than others. Thomas Jefferson and William Penn Elementary schools, for example, had already been the subject of years of public discussion about possible renovation, replacement, consolidation, or closure.

BASD has published school-level capital improvement estimates and enrollment figures, along with district-wide financial information. However, the District Design materials publicly available on BASD’s Planning for the Future of BASD website and reviewed by the organizers as of Oct. 27, 2026, do not provide a consistent preliminary comparison of long-term costs per student across elementary schools. Such a comparison would include capital investment spread over its useful life; transportation; building and grounds ownership, operations and maintenance; and instructional and administrative staffing.

For capital costs specifically, the near-term repair estimates shared by the district do not provide a consistent long-term comparison across schools. A comparable approach would annualize major capital investments over their useful lives, accounting for investments made earlier and those required in the future, so that differences in investment timing do not distort the school-to-school comparison.

That concern is especially timely as BASD moves toward developing full scenarios in December. Without a consistent preliminary financial baseline, the information already shared could influence which options become scenarios for deeper evaluation, narrowing the field before comparable long-term costs have been considered.

“Neither smaller enrollment nor major investments due now establish that a school is more expensive per student over the long term,” said Dan Sobrinski, a BASD parent and community member with professional experience leading national advisory and planning services. “A consistent cost baseline should inform which scenarios advance; detailed feasibility studies can follow.”

Scenario selection is itself a consequential decision

BASD is preparing for public meetings that will provide input into the District Design Process, followed by the selection of five scenarios for deeper evaluation.

The organizers support public engagement and a thorough evaluation of the scenarios. They are also asking BASD to be transparent about an earlier critical step: the criteria and analysis used to develop and select those scenarios.

Once the process narrows to five scenarios, alternatives that do not advance may receive little further consideration. The issue is not whether detailed analysis will occur later in the process. The issue is what information BASD uses to determine which options advance to that analysis in the first place. The organizers are asking BASD to make clear the criteria it will use to select the five scenarios, how those criteria will be applied, and the comparative information supporting those choices.

“For an open process to work, BASD needs to provide a consistent financial basis for deciding which options advance,” Sobrinski said. “The information shared to date does not provide that comparison. A consistent preliminary financial comparison should inform scenario selection. If that comparison has not been completed, BASD needs to explain how it can responsibly narrow the options before detailed feasibility analysis begins.”

Six priorities for the District Design Process

The open letter asks BASD to address six priorities:

1. Build on what is working. Examine reasonable funding opportunities and other alternatives before concluding that closures are necessary.

2. Count the full costs. Determine the net financial effect of closure, including transportation, receiving-school expenses, transition costs, infrastructure needs, school-specific funding, and community-partner support.

3. Compare long-term costs fairly. Compare elementary schools on a consistent school-by-school basis over at least 20 years, including operating costs and capital investment annualized over its useful life, so that the timing of past and future investments does not bias the comparison..

4. Share responsibility for excess capacity. Address the effects of district-wide planning decisions without placing the burden on individual schools or neighborhoods.

5. Recognize the value of compact neighborhood schools. Account for transportation, walkability, land and infrastructure use, family participation, and neighborhood impacts.

6. Consider the cumulative effects of prior closures. Evaluate the effects on transportation, family participation, neighborhood stability, and BASD’s elementary-school presence in Bethlehem’s urban core.

The more than 100 signers are not being asked to support or oppose the closure of any particular school. Signers may hold different views about the decisions BASD ultimately reaches. They are united in asking BASD to use a consistent preliminary financial comparison before narrowing the options, establish whether closures are necessary through a comprehensive analysis, apply consistent criteria to every school, and allow the evidence to determine the path forward.

“BASD has built a school district with much to be proud of,” said George Wacker, a BASD parent and community member with professional experience in local journalism, media, and community engagement. “We should approach these decisions from that position of strength, fully examine the options available to sustain what is working, and make structural changes only when the evidence shows they are necessary.”

The organizers welcome the opportunity to meet with Superintendent Dr. Lajara, members of the BASD Board of School Directors, and representatives of the District Design Committee to discuss the six priorities. They are asking BASD to respond in writing so the community can understand how each priority will be addressed.

Community members can read the full open letter, review its supporting research and endnotes, and add their names through the community sign-on form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSctSVUhnkama9hRNWfYeExj_GduGwrE-yoQjRzOJUNDepS6oA/viewform

Spanish-language version: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSczPGyx9R9xKYxNmZSAx2ohrDXVOu_RGE7eZ_Db2p__UDGORA/viewform

Upcoming BASD District Design Community Meetings

• Wednesday, November 4, 6–8 p.m. — Northeast Middle School

• Thursday, November 5, 9–11 a.m. — Nitschmann Middle School

• Thursday, November 5, 1–3 p.m. — Bethlehem YMCA

• Thursday, November 5, 6–8 p.m. — East Hills Middle School

• Friday, November 6, 9–11 a.m. — Broughal Middle School

 

About BASD Community Voices

BASD Community Voices is a community-led effort organized around an open letter drafted by BASD parents and community members Natalie Sobrinski, Dan Sobrinski, and George Wacker. The effort seeks a transparent, evidence-based District Design Process that considers the full financial, educational, and neighborhood impacts of potential changes to BASD schools.

Information provided to TVL by:
BASD Community Voices