This story is part of WyoFile’s collaborative legislative initiative — a coordinated effort by partner newsrooms to deliver comprehensive coverage of Wyoming’s 2025 general session.
CHEYENNE—A bill to keep open the University of Wyoming Laboratory School, which exists on the UW campus and has operated since at least 2008 in partnership with Albany County School District 1, has narrowly passed in the Senate Education Committee.
Senate File 126, “Establishment of a K-8 public lab school,” comes after a set of “unfortunate circumstances” between UW and ACSD1. A rupture over how to operate the school, which had been guided by a memorandum of understanding between the two bodies, led to a “unilateral decision” by the UW trustees, and a subsequent later announcement by the ACSD1 school board, to close the Lab School at the end of this academic year, bill co-sponsor Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, explained to the committee.
But for more than a century prior, the UW Lab School operated as a K-8 public school, offering practicum and observational experiences for pre-service teachers and other UW students.
“This had been a good working relationship governed by an MOU (between UW and ACSD1),” Rothfuss said.
However, as priorities changed, the school began operating less as a lab school and more like a public school on campus, he continued. Ultimately, that led the university to announce closure of the school.
“The local delegation tried to reconcile, but that was unsuccessful,” Rothfuss said.
Nearly everyone who testified in committee Wednesday agreed that it was a sad decision to close the Lab School, but school district officials questioned who would foot the bill to keep the school open and whether the school could be reorganized and kept open in time for next fall.
No one from the university or ACSD1 spoke in favor of SF 126 Wednesday. Tristan Green, chief financial officer for ACSD1, said that, as written, the bill would require $2.5 million in district funding to keep the school open.
“You want this Lab School to serve a state mission. If it’s to serve a state mission, then why is one district being required to pay for it?” Green asked. “Why not put it under the state, and allow the state to make this what it wants, not at the cost of one district?”
David Hardesty, assistant superintendent for Albany County School District 1, asked for additional clarification on resource allocation, because as it stands, the district has already made the “very difficult decision” to close the Lab School, bringing its students into existing ACSD1 schools.
Decisions about the MOU governing the Lab School, he said, had at times forced the school district to “funnel resources at a higher rate” into it than other schools, he continued. When faced with such challenges, the district ultimately decided to incorporate Lab School students into its existing facilities.
“We do have the capacity to provide for those students in our current schools,” Hardesty said.
Mike Smith, vice president for governmental affairs and community engagement at UW, told the committee that he wanted to address the idea that UW made a “rash decision” to close the Lab School. Rather than being a rash decision, he said the university determined that the Lab School was not contributing to the university’s mission.
“We felt it was time to move on,” Smith said, adding that the UW College of Education has over 200 locations across the state where it can provide other practicum experience.
Nate Martin, an ACSD1 trustee, told the committee that many people in the community were upset when the university decided to close the Lab School, and a “Save the Lab School” movement did try to do just that.
“We tried to approach the university, and they have their reasons for not wanting to move forward. But in the intervening months, as the process continued, it became clear that whatever we did, whatever resulted, was not going to be the Lab School anymore,” Martin said.
Martin called SF 126 a “Save the Lab School” bill, but said that simply can’t be done.
“You can’t save the Lab School because you can’t turn back the clock,” he said.
ACSD1 Trustee Emily Siegel-Stanton said that she had concerns over how SF 126 would affect the district, and, primarily, its funding.
“It’s with grief in my heart that I provide this testimony, and ask this committee to vote no on this bill today,” Siegel-Stanton said. “We’re living in a new era regarding … education funding.”
However, former UW Lab School student Adian O’Connor told the committee that the school profoundly impacted her education, upbringing and commitment to Wyoming.
“The Lab School provided an environment of compassionate educators, UW student teachers and peers, offering opportunities I wouldn’t have had elsewhere,” she said.
O’Connor continued that she has represented the Lab School in state, federal and international capacities, from advocating for funding for the local Head Start to traveling to Croatia to present at a National Youth Leadership Summit.
“My passion for service was fostered by both my Wyoming upbringing and by the philosophy of the UW Lab School,” O’Connor said.
Several former teachers also gave impassioned pleas to keep the school open.
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper, said tough decisions were made regarding the Lab School, but that he would vote in favor of SF 126.
“It seems to me that the school has been very successful,” Scott said. “Schools like that are precious, we need more of them. … It seems to me that what has happened is that both the university and the Albany County School District have found it bureaucratically inconvenient to work together.
“That’s what has led to the problem, and the fact that they are destroying a good school doesn’t seem to bother them,” Scott said.
It would be difficult to reconstruct and restart the Lab School, but Scott said he would vote for the bill.
Rothfuss said that the concept of “taking $2.5 million from the district is misleading,” because that funding is already being used by the Lab School, and will continue if SF 126 is to pass.
“It’s not taking, it’s not diminishing the capacity of the district,” Rothfuss said. “The reality is that this shift wouldn’t change anything.”
Further, the clearest way to create a loss to the district would be to separate and isolate the two, instead of operating in partnership, Rothfuss said.
Sen. Wendy Schuler, R-Evanston, said she was a student at UW and had good experiences in the Lab School. However, because of concerns over decreased enrollment, she said she could not support SF 126.
“I have considered a lot about declining enrollment,” Schuler said. “I do think that the local school boards need to make decisions on that.”
Sen. Jared Olsen, R-Cheyenne, said he would not vote for the bill either, because the construct behind the Lab School is problematic.
“There are two entities that do not want the school, and this bill tells those two entities, ‘You will have the school’,” Olsen said. “Until all the players are ready to play the game, I don’t think it will work.”
