[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6690239,"mediaKeyId","2617951-e6a6ca686d797d2bd1aa2ea585dbe2e7","parentId",2617951,"title","Issaquah board approves plan to study school‑structure changes; sets public‑input timeline and 2027–28 implementation target","audioSeconds",5665,"startMs",3525000,"endMs",9190000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2617951-e6a6ca686d797d2bd1aa2ea585dbe2e7&start=3525&end=9190","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2617951-e6a6ca686d797d2bd1aa2ea585dbe2e7/thumbnail_3525000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6690239/Washington/Issaquah-board-approves-plan-to-study-schoolstructure-changes-sets-publicinput-timeline-and-202728-implementation-target","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6690239-52464e1d4f4532da0a92b954b60c23c6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770952845&Signature=Sdtaus8eyZF-W4nGU4FpyUoeSlqWqZisZZY~EXyDHRT7OTG6~YV6rfYSOlDdWOB4D2YdW8kiOuLulMF61WEhHicsjDlTrOeW~2BbMfSSVO3zqdQInkiqdCsu4-reIGtpshywwbUBhX9zH3rQNCcHplYNRdmDuCzDV2xDO0iyQxl8Wjh0mA~3lP2l2Yt4nE7CsJpBt2POksE1vx7p3H9h0UPnz6sGTwb72Hw0ROo7HN5pvSlvyq7-Dhx9yfvZLmmyiorFwtEerdPSiQSUXaxGzo~h4miO~Prx3fbhz8dAabHonONj5-91hchvK229YM27Ar2~oXWQZdC-i2BiT5PQtw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Issaquah School District, Washington","date","2025-02-12T06:51:41.633Z","article","The Issaquah School District Board of Directors voted to pursue a districtwide examination of the “structure of schools” — options for how grades are grouped and where students attend — and set an implementation target of the 2027–28 school year. The motion, first made with a 2026–27 target, was amended during debate to 2027–28 and approved by the board.

Why it matters: Board members and the community framed the discussion as a direct response to sustained overcrowding at the district’s comprehensive high schools, a failed bond campaign and the need to find near‑term and long‑term ways to create capacity and program options for students. Any reconfiguration could affect start times, transportation, staff assignments and program delivery across multiple schools.

What the board approved: The final board motion directs staff to produce a clear menu of feasible reconfiguration options — for example, boundary adjustments, grade‑structure changes (such as K–5/6–8/9–12 or other intermediate models), ninth‑grade campus concepts, career‑center models, and double‑shift operations — and to publish costs, operational impacts, and a recommended engagement plan. Directors requested staff present the alternatives and an engagement timeline by the board’s first meeting in May, with the goal of returning with a decision timeline after public input.

Public comment shaped the debate: More than two dozen parents, teachers and student representatives spoke. Student reps asked the board to involve students in outreach and to avoid options that would reduce curricular opportunities; a Skyline teacher urged caution about any change that would harm arts programming. Parent and community commenters warned that rapid or poorly explained changes would erode trust; others urged rapid action so overcrowding could be addressed promptly. Student leader Naomi Wu told the board that pausing a ballot question should not mean stopping planning: “We will not be fully halting any operations or planning for building a new high school; we will simply be trying to increase the probability that those efforts will pass in the future.”

Points the board highlighted for staff review: Directors asked for (a) operational cost estimates and any capital costs; (b) impacts on teacher certification and collective‑bargaining questions; (c) transportation and start‑time implications; (d) academic impacts across grade levels, including elective and CTE access; and (e) a public‑engagement plan that reaches families who did not participate in previous outreach. Several directors also asked staff to evaluate using the site that had been planned for a new comprehensive high school as a potential phased development: a career/CTE center first, with future expansion for comprehensive high‑school capacity.

Timeline and next steps: Board members expressed divergent views about how quickly to act. Some urged a shorter timeline — asking for options and engagement planning by May and a decision process this fall — while others warned against rushing and said a longer public‑listening period was needed. The board approved the amended motion setting the implementation year at 2027–28 and directed staff to publish a set of alternatives and an engagement schedule for the board’s May meeting.

Ending: The board’s decision begins a multi‑month process of community engagement and technical analysis. Staff will return with costs, operational impacts and recommended next steps; the board said it expects a public review of options before final decisions affecting school boundaries or grade structures are made.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Issaquah School District Board Meeting 2/13/2025","oneSentenceSummary","After extended public comment and debate, the Issaquah School District board voted to pursue a reconfiguration of grade structures and facilities, amended the implementation year to 2027–28, and asked staff to compile options and an engagement plan for board review by May.","taxTitle","Issaquah School District, School Districts, Washington","taxId",14813,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6690244,"Issaquah School Board pulls April levy, votes to repeal special-election resolution after failed 2025 bond",9755,525000,10280000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2617951-e6a6ca686d797d2bd1aa2ea585dbe2e7&start=525&end=10280","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2617951-e6a6ca686d797d2bd1aa2ea585dbe2e7/thumbnail_525000.jpg","/articles/6690244/Washington/Issaquah-School-Board-pulls-April-levy-votes-to-repeal-special-election-resolution-after-failed-2025-bond","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6690244-60c2fd62d5dda2831689ce834f7cd99b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770952845&Signature=Oy3I4YBcYU-jQiQ4xYB1UfcNqbGlXWH79puZvXpkEho~uuLoigPQLu~nhlSkYbuwVl2ipe38Q7h7olTObfW0COOtgpw7h8tUPD8qJ6z7XEgCQckj8YUQIoudddm1264Nxt4HUZlzTWccDtCZmzxOs1eUrmqGuGIYSRDyAgmELi98ChiTPshcRu1bcHHmYx~MJUR3vuUdlMOJxu0X6CC4uXXTfBtin5HOi64d8GwYq~VXA5qDPJcMw00xx69gJPh81wtQUDr62ae0C5I0ngp2VIFEmNjO9vlRpPCTkzPmtpJq26-2flk0CS3LhGuu72hudcoVjhnhdrR5PxbMfFvdrw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Issaquah School District Board of Directors voted to repeal a previously adopted resolution calling a special April 2025 capital-levy election after the district’s February bond proposal failed. Board members said they would pause plans for an immediate levy and instead step up community outreach and analysis of alternatives.

The board’s action comes after the district’s Feb. 11 bond returned roughly 46% yes and 53% no as of the latest counts presented at the meeting. Mark Sherwood, who briefed the board on election returns, said the validation totals were still incomplete but that the early result “is down to 46% approved and 53% rejected.” The board followed a period of public comment in which residents and students urged the board to slow down and rebuild community trust before asking voters for more money.

Why it matters: The district had been preparing both a capital bond and a separate multi‑year capital-levy option for the spring. A levy passed in April would have funded capital projects over six years; district staff told the board that, if approved as presented, the levy would change the levy tax rate from 3.09 to about 3.30 and would collect roughly $138,700,000 over six years. Board members and speakers flagged voter trust, repeated bond proposals and tax sensitivity as central obstacles to moving immediately to another ballot measure.

What happened at the meeting: The board discussed a resolution (No. 1237) to repeal an earlier resolution (No. 1235) that had directed staff to place a capital-levy question on the April 2025 ballot. After staff presentations and public comment, a board member moved to table the repeal motion to allow further discussion; that motion carried. Following continued discussion and a public‑comment period focused on whether to pause, the board later brought the repeal motion back, and the board voted to adopt Resolution 1237, which repealed Resolution 1235 and removed the April special-election directive.

Public comment and board views: Dozens of speakers addressed the board on the topic. Longtime Issaquah City Council member Tolomarts, who said he was speaking “as one of seven” on that body, urged the district to pause: \"Losing a second consecutive bond... is a clear message from the voters that at this moment there is a disconnect between them and the people in this room. Please, I beg of you, as a friend, take a pause.\" Student representatives also urged the board to rebuild trust and to use students as messengers; Naomi Wu, an Issaquah High School senior, told the board the district should “redirect our efforts and energies into rebuilding our trust and establishing communication with our community,” and said pausing did not mean halting planning.

Board members expressed differing views on timing. Some directors said they were concerned about further erosion of trust and recommended a pause and a measured “reset.” Others said the district should keep attention on the overcrowding problem and quickly return with concrete alternatives, arguing that prolonged delay could make the district appear to have abandoned the issue.

Next steps: Board members asked staff to produce clearer documentation of the alternatives discussed (for example: reconfiguration options, redrawing boundaries, partial facilities, or career-focused space) and to propose an engagement plan. Board members said they wanted a set of options and criteria to be published to the public; several directors suggested the administration bring a package of alternatives and an engagement timeline back to the board by May for review and public input before any new ballot decision.

Clarifying details
- Bond returns presented at the meeting: about 46% yes, 53% no (early/partial counts). (Presenter: Mark Sherwood.)
- Proposed levy described by staff: levy tax rate rising from about 3.09 to about 3.30 if approved; total levy collections approximately $138,700,000 over six years; King County filing deadline was noted as Feb. 21. (Presenter: Martin Turney.)
- Board action: Resolution 1237 (repeal of Resolution 1235) was brought, tabled after public input, then un‑tabled and adopted; the vote was taken by voice and the motion carried. Specific roll-call tallies were not recorded in the meeting minutes presented at the meeting.

What the board said it would examine next: staff were directed to document feasible reconfiguration options, estimate costs and operational impacts (transportation, staffing, certification, athletics, start times), coordinate with labor partners, and develop a community engagement plan for review by the board.","After the February bond failed, the Issaquah School District board moved to pause and then repealed a resolution calling an April capital-levy election, following public comment urging a pause and staff presentations showing vote returns and levy design details.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Issaquah board approves plan to study school‑structure changes; sets public‑input timeline and 2027–28 implementation target

Issaquah School Board pulls April levy, votes to repeal special-election resolution after failed 2025 bond