Keep Tomahawk OpenCOMMUNITY EVIDENCE & ADVOCACYKEEP TOMAHAWK OPEN
Three of the five proposed elementary closures are here. Half of our area's six schools.
Before removing that much local capacity, compare complete plans that keep more Southeast schools open.
The published committee materials label forecast-based utilization as 2025. The district should clarify the intended year and whether members received an explanation or correction.
2030 forecast ratios labeled as 2025.
Review the data discrepancyScoring schools separately does not capture the regional impact. Compare complete closure plans using shared receiving capacity, school access and family travel.
Each closure changes the choices for the next.
Review the voting methodologyThe three remaining Southeast schools cannot absorb the full school enrollment pool on their own. Some students will be forced to cross major roads, raising safety concerns and putting additional stress on an already taxed bus system.
Compare capacity and assignmentsRelatively lower-priced family housing is an enduring part of the Southeast. School planning should account for the additional safety concerns around major-road crossings and the daily burden of longer trips.
About 4 in 5 owner homes valued below $400k
Compare housing valuesEspecially in the Southeast, enrollment is projected to stay nearly flat through 2030. Closing half the area’s elementary schools removes almost half its functional capacity.
1.6% fewer pupils. 47.8% fewer functional seats.
Explore forecast uncertaintyUse the evidence, add your experience, and make a specific request.
01 / DISTRICT DATA
The published committee materials label forecast-based utilization as 2025. The heading and calculations need to agree, and the district should explain which year was intended.
The elementary spreadsheet’s “2025 % of Cap” column tracks projected 2030 enrollment divided by functional capacity. The currently posted Steering Committee Meeting 1 presentation repeats the error on PDF page 44.
IN THE COMMITTEE PRESENTATION
Printed “2025”41.6%
Correct 2025 % of Cap48.3%
Printed: 280 projected pupils ÷ 673 seats.
Correct: 325 pupils in 2025 ÷ 673 seats.
IN THE ELEMENTARY SPREADSHEET
Printed “2025”45.5%
Correct 2025 % of Cap56.6%
Understated by 11.1 percentage points.
Correct: 335 pupils in 2025 ÷ 592 seats.
2030 forecast: 269 ÷ 592 = 45.4%; printed as 45.5%.
These were published as resources for evaluating schools: Meeting 1 introduces the Northeast example on page 43 and directs participants to review the spreadsheet on page 51. The error makes some schools appear more utilized and others less utilized than their 2025 counts show.
| School / area | Labeled “2025 % of Cap”Uses 2030 estimated enrollments | Correct 2025 % of Cap2025 enrollment / functional capacity |
|---|---|---|
| Bentwood | 64.7%370 ÷ 572 | 60.3%345 ÷ 572 |
| Heatherstone | 41.6%280 ÷ 673 | 48.3%325 ÷ 673 |
| Pleasant Ridge | 54.2%283 ÷ 522 | 55.4%289 ÷ 522 |
| Walnut Grove | 64.7%370 ÷ 572 | 70.3%402 ÷ 572 |
| Northeast total | 55.7%1,303 ÷ 2,339 | 58.2%1,361 ÷ 2,339 |
All five printed percentages match the displayed 2030 ratios at the shown precision. The area total uses total pupils divided by total seats.
Across the elementary spreadsheet, all 35 populated school percentages disagree with the displayed 2025 inputs. They follow the 2030 ratios: 22 match to one decimal; 13 differ by just 0.1 percentage point, potentially because of unrounded inputs.
Incorrect year labels appear in the district’s published committee materials. We have not established whether members relied on those percentages or whether correcting them changes the recommendation.
The currently posted Meeting 1 deck is labeled June 23 but includes a September 3 date stamp on p.25. Original meeting versions and correction history are needed to establish what was shown or distributed at each meeting.
ASK THE DISTRICT
Publish corrected figures and the version history. Identify which comparisons, rankings and recommendations used the affected cells, whether members received corrections, and what changes when complete closure plans are evaluated with consistent data.
02 / VOTING METHODOLOGY
Scoring schools separately does not capture the regional impact. Each closure changes the receiving seats, routes and choices available for the next.
VOTING PROCEDURE
Evaluate each school. Then evaluate what the closures do together.
Scoring schools separately does not capture the regional impact.
A ranking is not a complete closure plan.Each member ranks six elementary closure choices.
3 of 5 elementary schools proposed for closure are in the Southeast.
Use agreed criteria and update the whole picture.
Do not assume a fixed number must close.Compare building needs, enrollment and family access.
Recalculate receiving seats, travel and combined demand.
Compare fewer Southeast closures, including keeping Tomahawk.
Weigh verified assignments, regional burden and net savings.
THE KEY QUESTIONWould reassessing each closure—or comparing complete packages—produce a better outcome?
The survey was advisory; administration recommended closures and the Board decides. This alternative is not a reconstruction of committee deliberations. Capacity uses 2025 school counts and 85% of each remaining school’s functional seats, rounded down; includes program pupils before outside assignments. School icons are schematic.
05 / FORECAST UNCERTAINTY
The Southeast’s five-year estimate is only 1.6% below its 2025 enrollment. How much weight should a more uncertain ten-year outlook carry in a permanent closure decision?
SIX SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS · 2025 → 2030
Nearly flat enrollment. Three proposed closures. A 1.6% decline leaves almost the same pupil demand while the proposal removes half the area’s six elementary schools.
2025 is the source’s enrollment baseline, not a verified 2026 count. The six 2030 school estimates sum to 1,797; the printed area subtotal is 1,796. Same school pool, including program pupils, before outside assignments and program moves. District spreadsheet, p.1 ↗
BASELINES ACROSS ALL NINE PLANNING AREAS
Its five-year decline is just 1.6%, compared with 12.0% in East, 9.2% in West and 8.2% in South. Using the listed buildings before the proposal, Southeast utilization is about 61%—near the middle of the planning areas.
All bars use the same 0–3,200 pupil/seat scale. Change is shown only for forecast years, against the baseline in the same source; changing the building scenario does not remove pupils. Percent utilization is pupils ÷ functional seats. District spreadsheet, pp.1–2 ↗
Totals sum the displayed school rows, which can differ slightly from printed area subtotals. All pupils are kept in their planning area, including pupils from earlier school mergers. Both enrollment years are compared with the listed nonhistorical school buildings; the 2025 view is a capacity scenario using the enrollment baseline, rather than a reconstruction of the buildings operating in 2025. The closure scenario removes Black Bob, Heritage, Tomahawk, Scarborough and Walnut Grove; it is a fixed-capacity screen, not an adopted future building or assignment plan.
Central’s bond consolidations and North Central’s Meadow Lane replacement also require future-capacity reconciliation; their endpoint changes are not purely demographic.
The 2025 target rounds seats down per school; the 2030 and 2035–36 screens round down in aggregate, matching the site's existing capacity panels.
The question is the size of the reduction. Nearly flat enrollment can coexist with spare seats. Does removing 1,431 Southeast functional seats—47.8% of its listed capacity—fit a five-year decline of just 29 pupils, when compared with complete alternatives?
THREE SOUTHEAST CLOSURES · 2030 FORECAST
Close Tomahawk, Heritage and Black Bob. Briarwood, Havencroft and Green Springs remain.
About 26% below the forecast. That is how far enrollment would have to fall to fit the three remaining schools at the 85% target.
The slider tests ±30% scenarios; it is not a confidence interval or a claim about likely error. Both options count the same six-school enrollment pool, before outside assignments and program moves. This is a local capacity screen. 2030 source, pp.1–2 ↗
ADDITIONAL SCHOOL DETAIL · JULY STUDY · 2025–26 TO 2034–35
The July study also shows modest changes across the six Southeast schools. Tomahawk’s utilization falls 5 percentage points; four of the six schools end flat or higher.
The five-year endpoint is 2030–31 in this source; the ten-year table ends in 2034–35. Changes are in percentage points from 2025–26. These are school utilization forecasts under the July study’s capacity assumptions, before the proposed closures. The table spans ten school years and nine annual intervals. July study, pp.13–14 ↗
The spreadsheet above provides comparable 2025 and 2030 pupil counts. The July study reports rounded utilization percentages on a different basis. The regional chart above now uses the June 23 enrollment table for the 2035–36 pupil forecast and its matching 2025–26 baseline. This July table is a separate utilization series ending in 2034–35. We retain its published school percentages rather than converting or averaging them into regional enrollment counts.
Buildings last for decades, so the district has reason to look beyond five years. Existing spare capacity, wider receiving options and costs may support consolidation even with flat enrollment. But a distant estimate deserves less weight when future births, family moves and school choices remain uncertain.
With the five-year pupil count nearly unchanged, ask what the longer forecast adds to the case for closing three Southeast schools—and whether a plan retaining Tomahawk works across a tested range.
WHY FIVE YEARS SHOULD CARRY MORE WEIGHT
Birth records give a firmer starting point. Moves and school choices can still change enrollment.
Future births add another layer of uncertainty, alongside family moves and housing turnover.
Historical national pre-K–8 forecasts had about 2.5× the average error at ten years compared with five.
Mean absolute percentage error · same 0–4% scale
NCES national averages are not worst-case errors or an error band for Olathe. NCES table A, p.73 ↗
The reviewed sources do not establish a five- or ten-year Southeast prediction interval. The district’s consultant recommends adding a probabilistic band to the ten-year forecast. Ask for ranges tested against past school-area outcomes—not just a single number. July study, pp.25, 39–40 ↗
A 95% prediction interval aims to cover the future enrollment outcome 95% of the time. Average error alone cannot tell us its width.
BIRTHS MATTER · SO DO TIMING AND FAMILY MOVES
U.S. rates fell among younger adults and rose among adults in their thirties in 2025.
Change in births per 1,000 women in each age group, 2024→2025; 2025 provisional. CDC table 1, p.6 ↗
Johnson County reports declining birth rates. U.S. births also fell about 1% in 2025. Those trends support caution about future demand.
But the timing of births, families moving into existing homes and the share entering district schools can change which neighborhoods need seats. Cultural change is a hypothesis to test, not evidence of an enrollment rebound.
Johnson County birth trends ↗ · Local forecast inputs, pp.20–22 ↗
Explain why a five-year decline of just 29 pupils supports three Southeast closures. Compare a complete plan retaining Tomahawk, update assignments annually, and use the ten-year outlook to test resilience across a published range.
Use this argument ↗UTILIZATION & ENROLLMENT
Compare all district elementary schools using raw 2025 enrollment, functional student seats and the spreadsheet’s 2030 estimates. Middle schools are excluded.
The spreadsheet includes Westview, which merged into Rolling Ridge for 2026–27. Its historical row is available in the school filter and CSV. Missing values remain “Not listed.” Westview merger source ↗ Central-area consolidation and program changes can affect 2030 estimates; endpoint changes are not pure demographic trends.
Rates here equal raw enrollment divided by functional student capacity. We show the seats as well as the percentage: 80% of a smaller building is not the same number of pupils as 80% of a larger one.
The spreadsheet’s “2025 % of Cap” column tracks 2030 forecast ratios. These rates are recalculated from raw 2025 pupils and functional seats. See the data discrepancy →
Tomahawk's spreadsheet endpoints are 361 in 2025 and 369 estimated in 2030. The district separately cites future decline. Two endpoints do not prove continuing growth or disprove a longer-term decline.
Ask: Which forecast horizon, cohort definition and program assumptions support the closure recommendation?
District rationale ↗Pair each number with its year, denominator and source.
BUILDING CONDITION & COSTS
Compare the published building grades and upcoming expenditures for every district elementary school. Ask for the assessments, project scopes and timelines behind these figures.
Blank, N/A and struck-through fields are shown as “Not listed,” not zero. The ages for Meadow Lane, Central, Fairview, Northview and Ridgeview are struck through in the source. Westview is available as a historical row in the filter. “Upcoming expenditures” is the source's label. These figures are not annual operating savings, complete lifecycle costs, or a verified cost of keeping each school open.
The $1.3 million estimate is above Havencroft's $610,000, Indian Creek's $350,000 and Briarwood's $445,000. That weighs in the district's favor on this particular comparison and belongs in an honest advocacy case.
Tomahawk, Havencroft and Indian Creek all have a listed C grade. A shared letter grade does not establish that their repair needs are equivalent.
“Please publish the condition assessments and comparable cost estimates that show why closing Tomahawk is preferable to retaining it.”Suggested question for the district
03 / LOCAL CAPACITY
Using current enrollment from the district’s 2025 spreadsheet, three closures leave 1,826 pupils competing for 1,324 seats at the 85% planning target—a 502-pupil gap. Keeping Tomahawk preserves 452 functional seats and reduces that gap to 118. Some students will be forced to cross major roads, raising safety concerns and putting additional stress on an already taxed bus system. Final boundaries and routes will determine which families are affected.
PLANNING AREA EXPLORER
2025 pupils / functional seats after five elementary closures
2025 pupils ÷ remaining functional seats. The district’s planning target is 85%; 100% fills all functional seats.
Geography & school sites: Johnson County AIMS · Select an area or school marker for details.
2025 enrollment before boundary and program moves. Red X marks the five proposed elementary closures; rates use the functional seats in the remaining buildings. Download map PDF
THE SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON
2025 enrollment · all five proposed elementary closures · before boundary and program moves
Southeast: 502 pupils beyond the remaining schools’ 85% target.
Download bar chart PDFBoth visuals keep each area’s 2025 school pupils in the same pool. The proposal closes Black Bob, Heritage, Tomahawk, Scarborough and Walnut Grove. Outside-area assignments and program moves may provide room elsewhere; this is not a districtwide shortage or a completed assignment plan. Southeast planning seats are rounded down at each remaining school: 1,324. District counts and seats ↗ · County boundary source ↗
Start with the map. Tap a numbered area, choose a school, and see its remaining seats before you apply. Scenario settings and the full evidence are available inside the tool.
Loading the boundary tool…
Numbered planning areas come from the district's map. Student allocations and route flags are community estimates. This tool does not show proposed or adopted attendance boundaries.
04 / AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Closing half the Southeast’s schools concentrates disruption in a region with thousands of homes below Olathe’s median home value. Families in these neighborhoods would lose nearby schools, putting walking access at risk and adding travel burdens to the cost of raising children.
of owner-occupied homes below $400,000
of owner-occupied homes have at least three bedrooms
children under five in the estimated area population
PLANNING AREA EXPLORER
Owner-occupied homes valued below $400,000 · ACS 2020–2024
Darker green means a larger share of lower-valued homes. Values describe housing stock, not current sale prices.
Geography & school sites: Johnson County AIMS · Select an area or school marker for details.
Darker green means a larger share of lower-valued homes. Red X marks all six schools in the current closure recommendation: five elementary schools and Indian Trail Middle. Values describe owner-occupied housing stock, not current listings, household budgets or where future pupils will live. Census data ? Boundary method ? School locations ? Download map PDF
THE SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON
ACS 2020–2024 · all nine planning areas · values in 2024 dollars
Closure counts include the five proposed elementary closures and Indian Trail Middle, matching the housing map.
TAKE ACTION
Make one clear request, support it with evidence, and explain what matters to your family or neighborhood.
Nothing is sent automatically. Review and personalize the wording before using it.
The draft is a starting point, not a statement from every family. Source links are available in the evidence brief and library.
The core facts, limitations, strongest counterargument and request in a printable evidence brief.
District data, voting methodology, capacity, affordable housing and forecast uncertainty—each paired with a specific request.
Find current meeting information and the district's participation instructions.
Board of Education ↗SOURCES & EVIDENCE STANDARDS
Use original district materials wherever possible. Keep source facts separate from calculations, scenario assumptions and personal accounts.
Figures retain their year and denominator. We identify conflicting source definitions, describe calculations and show evidence that cuts against our preferred outcome. Scenario outputs do not establish district intent or operational feasibility.
This edition was updated September 12, 2026. Each source card lists its review date. Links open live district resources, which may change. Before quoting a schedule or proposal status, check the original source.
Community statements are drafted locally. The site does not collect submissions, publish testimonials or claim a membership count.