Board weighs three options for Katherine Johnson virtual academy; majority favor reimagining

The Green Bay Area Public School District Board of Education spent the bulk of its March 17 meeting discussing the future of Katherine Johnson Academy, the district's K-8 enriched virtual learning school, as staff presented three options and board members pressed for enrollment, budget and transition details.

District staff member David Johns told the board the discussion would continue into April and that the board would have the opportunity for a decision at the board's second April meeting. "The intent this evening is to continue the discussion," Johns said, adding that the memo provided background on KJ's history, enrollment by grade and projections for 2025-26 based on rolling current students forward.

Why it matters: KJ serves students with diverse needs, including some who rely on virtual instruction because of medical issues, travel or social‑emotional concerns. Board members said any decision must consider both district finances and the potential harm to students served by a specialized virtual environment.

Johns summarized the three options under consideration: close KJ as soon as next school year and return students to home attendance schools; freeze enrollment for one year to support phased transitions; or "reimagine" KJ by phasing it out as a school and reopening it as a districtwide program for virtual learning that would support co-enrollment, provide individualized courses and act as a hub for secondary virtual offerings. "Option 3 opens up all of that," Johns said. He said conversion to a program would require a year of exploration and a phased approach.

Board members who spoke at length converged around the reimagine option but disagreed about whether reimagining must mean closing KJ as an identified school. Board member Andrew Crossan argued KJ's identity matters to students: "The identity of a school is really important. If we are going to make it a program''you're going to cut the heart out of the program," Crossan said, urging the board to preserve the school's name and distinct identity even if programmatic expansion occurs.

Several board members said they saw educational value in extending virtual offerings to allow co-enrollment (students attending neighborhood schools for some classes while taking virtual courses through KJ) and to expand secondary course access. Board member Lynn (first name used in meeting) described KJ as a place that "meets the needs of students that desperately need something different than a conventional classroom," and said option 3 could be tailored to avoid simply putting children back into settings in which they previously struggled.

Board members requested more information before taking action. Specifically they asked staff to provide: - A clearer break‑even enrollment estimate and a cost comparison showing whether KJ's operating costs scale differently from a conventional brick‑and‑mortar school; David Johns noted the district's typical classroom break‑even would be about 25 students per classroom (roughly 225 total) but acknowledged that may not be an apples-to-apples comparison for virtual instruction. - Details on instructional methodology and whether programmatic changes would alter the high-contact, low-ratio support KJ currently provides. - A compare-and-contrast (T‑chart) showing implications if KJ remains a school versus conversion to a program, including assessment/reporting differences (e.g., which school receives school-based assessment results). - Options for extending virtual pathways to secondary grades and how electives and on-site experiences would be provided.

Johns told the board he would provide the requested financial, programming and enrollment analysis and that a decision could be scheduled for the board's second April meeting. Several board members volunteered to participate in a redesign team or study group should the board choose option 3.

Ending: The board did not take formal action on KJ on March 17; members asked staff to return with the requested documentation and a clearer implementation plan in April, and a special meeting prior to the April work session was later scheduled to allow time for staff follow-up and a possible vote.