Hundreds of speakers filled public comment time at a Leander ISD board meeting to oppose proposed campus closures and repurposings, with large turnouts from Steiner Ranch Elementary and Cypress Elementary neighborhoods. Speakers included students, teachers, parents and community members who urged trustees to delay decisions and provide clearer data.

The board set public-comment rules at the start of the meeting, saying 106 individuals had signed up and reducing the usual 90-second speaking time to 60 seconds “due to the high number of individuals who will be speaking this evening.” The district reiterated that policy BED (local) governs the public-comment procedures.

Why it matters: The comments came amid a district facilities-optimization process that administration says responds to changing enrollment patterns. Many speakers said the process has been opaque and that past promises tied to the 2023 bond election—cited by parents in remarks—were helping shape community expectations.

Community speakers described what they called deep harm from closing neighborhood schools. Fourth grader Addison Courtright described extracurricular opportunities she could lose at Cypress Elementary; former Steiner student Olivia Crawford said closing Steiner Ranch would “break my heart,” noting she and her classmates had strong relationships with teachers. Teacher Anne Witt told trustees: “Steiner's academic performance is not only strong, it's among the best in the district,” and asked the board to “replicate the success, not erase it.”

Parents and staff pressed the district on several recurring points: the data and methodology behind enrollment projections and the district’s “facility needs matrix,” the financial assumptions that underlie any savings projections, where displaced students and staff would go, and what would become of campuses after repurposing. A number of speakers referenced a 2023 district statement saying passage of Proposition A would not result in school closures as they understood it. Several speakers asked the board to pursue less disruptive alternatives first—open enrollment expansions, pre-K pilots, partial repurposing, or targeted administrative cuts.

Those raising special‑education concerns asked the board to ensure continuity of services. A parent who represents children with individualized education programs said legally the district must provide the supports in each student’s IEP and asked trustees to require case‑by‑case transition plans before any closing.

Trustees and staff response: Trustees repeatedly said they heard the community and agreed to schedule additional town halls and committee work. Board chair and other trustees acknowledged rules needed refinement after speakers raised signup and check‑in issues; they said board operations will bring changes to future agendas.

Ending note: Speakers who identified themselves as teachers and long‑time residents repeatedly asked the board to pause decisions, demand more transparent data from administration and consider community‑led alternatives before pursuing closures. The board did not take final action on facilities at the meeting; public comment was part of a larger multi‑meeting process that trustees said will continue.