Committee approves behavioral‑reassignment contracts with Banner Prep and Lad Lake Synergy after public concern

The Committee on Student Achievement and School Innovation voted 5‑0 to approve one‑year contracts for behavioral reassignment seats with Banner Prep and Lad Lake Synergy for the 2025–26 school year after extended discussion about oversight, transition practices and a public complaint.

Bridget Schock Anderson, Director of Contracted School Services, told the committee the contracts provide placements for students reassigned through a central services hearing process because of behavioral offenses. The district requested 180 seats for Banner Prep in grades 6–12 (a decrease of 30 seats from the previous contract) and continuation of 10 seats for Lad Lake Synergy in grades 6–12. Schock said the contracts include amended performance metrics that align with the state’s alternative accountability requirements.

A retired teacher and mentor, Larry Hoffman, spoke during public comment and described his experience supporting a student assigned to Lad Lake. Hoffman said the student was promoted back to a traditional MPS school after several months at Lad Lake and later returned to central‑office suspension for violent behavior. "Something is wrong with the system when a youth is placed in a restrictive environment but comes out with the same behavioral challenges," Hoffman said, and urged the committee to "delay your decision to take a hard look at what you expect the behavioral reassignment school to accomplish."

Administration response and oversight

Bridget Schock Anderson said the Office of Contracted School Services works in collaboration with Central Student Services for placement and dismissal, and that staff recently revised processes to be more goal‑centered rather than strictly time‑driven so students meet defined behavioral, attendance and academic goals prior to dismissal. "We are in the school all the time," Schock said, and said mentors and AODA counseling are provided; she also invited constituents to report concerns so staff can investigate.

Director O'Halloran, who moved approval, thanked Hoffman for raising concerns and said the committee would continue to monitor the programs. Director Gokul Gandhi asked for clearer processes to document constituent concerns and for the board to distinguish administrative versus governance responsibilities; Bridget Schock described three reporting avenues: the Office of Board Governance (constituent concern process), direct calls to administration, or the Parent Center, all of which lead to administrative investigation and a response within five days when routed through Board Governance.

Questions from board members included whether the district tracks recidivism for students who return from reassignment placements; Schock said the district collects data and can provide those figures on request. Several board members and administration noted challenges in transition back to traditional schools and that the district is rethinking supports and reentry procedures to improve outcomes.

The motion to approve the contracts was moved by Director O'Halloran and passed on roll call 5‑0.

Why it matters

Behavioral reassignment placements affect students who have experienced significant behavioral incidents; the committee’s discussion focused on program oversight, mentorship access, measurable goals for dismissal, and how the district supports students when they return to traditional schools.

What committee members asked for next

• Administration to provide recidivism and outcome data for students placed in reassignment programs.

• Clarify and publish constituent complaint pathways and response timelines so administrative staff can address concerns before they escalate to board meetings.

• Continued refinement of transition and reentry supports to reduce repeat suspensions and improve post‑placement outcomes.