At the May 8 meeting, community members urged the Olympia School District board to publicly release the preliminary “Getting Smart” analysis presented to the district’s long-range facilities advisory committee and to invite the consultants to present the results at a regular board meeting.

The issue matters because the advisory presentation offered programmatic options intended to attract students and reimagine how district facilities are used amid declining enrollment and budget pressures; community members said the ideas could provide alternatives to school closures.

K. Brian Brannes, who attended the long-range facilities committee meeting, told the board Getting Smart’s presentation showed “the best product from a consultant that I have seen” and described more than 10 micro-school options designed to fit inside existing neighborhood schools and potentially attract hundreds of students. Brannes asked the board to schedule a public presentation with consultants Rebecca Mittels and Tom Vander Ark and to allow public comment.

Other public commenters split on strategy. Bridal Larry, a long-range facilities advisory participant, urged the district to focus on recruiting in-district students through new programming and to avoid framing the discussion around immediate school closures. Larry suggested central-administration cuts and efficiencies should be explored before neighborhood-school closures. Kelsey Schaeffer, speaking from state-government experience, warned that closing schools “disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable students and neighborhoods” and urged the board to pursue targeted, data-driven efficiency measures instead.

Superintendent Kevin Murphy confirmed that the district’s long-range facilities committee had met recently and that the Getting Smart group participated in those discussions to explore innovative uses for facilities as the district faces budgetary challenges. Murphy described the advisory meeting as an early step in a wider conversation and said the final committee product will be forthcoming.

There was no board vote or formal action on facility changes at the May 8 meeting. Public commenters made an explicit request that the consultant findings be presented in a public board meeting (rather than only at advisory committee meetings) and that the consultants attend. Board members did not commit to a date in the meeting minutes; Brannes said the consultants had agreed in the advisory meeting to present if asked.

Why it matters locally: proposals for micro-schools, place-based programs and other nontraditional models could influence enrollment trends, the district’s ability to recapture students, and long-term capital needs. Community members emphasized transparency and asked the board to use a public forum for consultant findings rather than limiting the discussion to the advisory committee.

Next steps: community members requested the board schedule a public presentation of the Getting Smart results and invite the consultants to present. The district’s long-range facilities committee will finalize its recommendations; the board will consider them in future meetings and the public has asked the board to allow formal public comment when consultants present.