Blue Valley Superintendent Dr. Gillian Chapman wrote to parents last week, stating that the community “deserves honest, informed conversations about public education.” Most of what followed was anything but honest.
Chapman’s email was prompted by an opinion in the Kansas City Star by paid contributor Patrick Tuohey, entitled “Blue Valley schools are flush with cash. Why are academics slipping?” Tuohey noted that ACT scores dropped from a high of 25.9 in 2016 to 22.8 in 2024, and that Blue Valley middle-schoolers are losing ground on state assessments compared to the national average.
Chapman didn’t address those facts or say anything about declining outcomes in the district. Instead, she tried to deflect attention from the issue. She cited rankings from U.S. News & World Report that sound good, but didn’t mention the statistic that matters: according to U.S. News & World Report, the highest college-readiness among Blue Valley high schools is 50.7%, at Blue Valley Northwest. College-readiness at Blue Valley West is just 39%, and the others are in the 40s. Outcomes matter, not rankings that obscure middling performance.
S
he said Blue Valley “has recorded year-over-year gains in state assessment scores,” but neglected to inform parents that more than 40% of Blue Valley students are not proficient in math and reading, or that overall outcomes are lower than in 2015.
This is a standard tactic among education administrators; they speak of rankings and changes, but when was the last time you heard they speak of actual outcomes?
Chapman also told parents that “annual academic goals are set” in the district’s Strategic Plan, but that also seems misleading. Goals are specific improvements, like going from 58% proficient to 65% proficient over a defined period of time, but the district’s strategic plan has no targets or timelines. Instead, the district identifies a series of adult inputs, like quality instruction and technology. To be sure, these are important inputs, but they are not goals.
Chapman shares deceptive funding data
Tuohey’s column accurately said Blue Valley outcomes are declining despite growing budgets and strong reserves. He said the district has about $100 million in reserves that are “flexible and available for day-to-day needs,” while Chapman says “only $16 million was unrestricted.”
The district began this school year with more than $67 million in unencumbered operating cash reserves. Tuohey was a little high, but Chapman horribly understated the money that is available for day-to-day needs. Some of the operating balances can only be used for the stated purpose of a fund, but they are still available for this year’s needs.
Special Education is a good example. Districts are not legally required to have any money left over in the fund, and some districts keep a zero balance. Each year, districts voluntarily transfer discretionary funding to Special Education; once there, the money can only be used for Special Education, but Blue Valley could transfer $9 million less than planned this year and finish with a zero balance while meeting all of its special education needs, thereby freeing up $9 million for something else.
USD 500 Kansas City did exactly that between 2020 and 2024, spending down its $14 million balance to zero and making that much available for other uses.
Twenty years ago, Blue Valley had $28.5 million in unencumbered operating reserves. The balance peaked at $77 million at the end of the 2024 school year, and the district used $10 million of it during the 2025 school year to finish at $67 million. Their own budgets show these reserves are available.
Chapman also deceived parents about the amount of funding it receives, saying the district ranks “269 out of 286 districts” for the amount of state and federal funding it receives per student.
The ranking may be correct, but that doesn’t mean the district has low funding. This year’s Budget at a Glance report shows Blue Valley spent $18,500 per student last year and is budgeting to spend nearly $21,000 this year. Further, there are two important reasons that the district gets less state and federal funding than most districts.
- Blue Valley collects an extraordinary amount of local property tax relative to other districts. It is so property-rich that it doesn’t qualify for the supplemental state funding that goes to less fortunate districts.
- Districts get extra funding for free or reduced lunch students, and a much smaller portion of Blue Valley’s enrollment falls in that category. Only 12% of the district’s students meet that qualification, whereas the state average is 51%.
Having relatively few low-income students also gives the district an advantage in overall student achievement because those students are typically at least two years’ worth of learning behind their more affluent peers. Comparing outcomes for students who are not considered low-income students reveals that Blue Valley’s outcomes on the state assessment are not much different than De Soto, Olathe, and Shawnee Mission.
Chapman told parents, “At the heart of everything we do is your children,” but her deceptive statements show it is business as usual — making administrators and school board members look good, and ignoring that over 40% of Blue Valley students are not proficient. I’ve said it before and will likely have to say it hundreds of times more until the Legislature intervenes: student outcomes won’t change until adult behaviors change.
