By PAUL GAUTHIER, LISD Trustee, Place 7
Leander Independent School District is proposing to close three elementary schools- including Steiner Ranch Elementary, one of its most diverse and highest performing campuses- while moving ahead with plans to build two new schools at a much greater cost. On paper, this might look like a “right-sizing” strategy. In reality, however- it raises far more questions than answers.
A Question of Priorities
Closing schools is one of the most disruptive actions any district can make. It uproots students, fragments communities, devalues surrounding property values, and often drives families to seek other educational options, such as charter schools. District leaders justify closures by pointing to shifting enrollment patterns, facility age, or operational costs. But when closures are paired with plans for new construction- especially at a significantly higher price tag- it’s fair to ask: is this about saving money or something else?
Steiner Ranch Elementary: A Model School on the Chopping Block
The inclusion of Steiner Ranch Elementary in the closure list is especially puzzling: Not only does the school consistently post high academic achievement, it also stands out as one of the district’s most diverse and inclusive environments, reflecting the real world our children will soon enter. Research shows that diverse, high-performing schools provide lasting benefits- not only for individual students, but for the health of the district, and the broader community as a whole. Eliminating such a campus could easily impact academic excellence, community trust, cohesion, and the district’s overall reputation.
Faulty Math
Some district officials have said that closing older schools reduces maintenance costs. Yet the projected costs of building two newer schools surpasses the modest savings from closing three existing ones. If financial stewardship is the stated goal, why replace less expensive operational capacity with far costlier, newer facilities?
Taxpayers, homeowners and their kids deserve a clear, transparent explanation- one supported by detailed financial data, not generalities.
Community Trust at Stake
Leander ISD has long benefited from strong community involvement. Parents, educators, and residents have repeatedly supported bonds and levies when convinced they serve students’ best interests. But sudden, seemingly contradictory moves- closing successful schools (after repeated bond approvals by the same communities), while planning new construction risks damaging that trust. Trust placed in trustees and the LISD leadership, once lost, will be difficult if not impossible to regain.
A Better Path Forward
Before the district moves ahead, it owes the community a thorough, data-driven analysis made public for review, contemplation, and then discussion with residents.
- Genuine Community Engagement- not limiting concerned citizens to two-minute sound bites but rather, time for meaningful dialogue.
- Full Cost-Benefit Comparisons of replacement vs minor (if any) renovations
- A thorough Financial Explanation of how we got here despite past bond approvals and record-setting largesse from the last legislative session for funding schools in HB 2.
- Impact Studies on academic performance comparisons of the schools, diversity and neighborhood stability
The families of Steiner Ranch, along with those in the other affected schools deserve answers- not just vague assurances and a rushed vote. Decisions of this magnitude should be guided by the best interests of students, not unclear financial formulas or opaque planning processes.
If Leander ISD is committed to “putting students first” then keeping high-performing, diverse schools open (like Steiner Ranch Elementary) should be academic.
Paul Gauthier’s term on Leander ISD School Board is up November 2026.
This guest editorial represents the personal views of the author and is published for informational and discussion purposes only. The opinions expressed herein do not reflect the official policy or standpoint of Four Points News. The newspaper assumes no responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of or reliance on the views expressed.