Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lakeville Online Academy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents urge Lakeville board not to close Lakeville Online Academy
Summary
Parents and families spoke at the Feb. 18 Lakeville School Board meeting to urge the board and administration to preserve Lakeville Online Academy, saying closure would harm students who rely on flexible, online instruction and could cost the district enrollment-based funding.
Lakeville — At the Lakeville School Board’s Feb. 18 meeting, several parents and families urged the board to reverse or delay an administrative decision to close Lakeville Online Academy (LOA), saying the program serves students who cannot thrive in traditional classrooms.
Corinne Henning, who identified herself during public comment, told the board, “Closing Lakeville Online Elementary means ignoring district policy, ignoring the district's mission” and warned the district could lose “nearly half a million dollars in funding” tied to enrollment. Henning cited several district policies by number as the basis for her concerns and urged the board to re-evaluate the closure with full data and discussion.
Bill C., who said his son Jack has ongoing health needs and found LOA to be a fit, read a statement and appealed to the board for time: “Give us a year,” he said, asking the board to continue the program for at least one more school year so families can plan.
Other parents described similar experiences. Jessica H. praised LOA’s teachers and said the program served her family during the pandemic and after: “When my daughter wanted to graduate early, they worked with her, respected her right, her need to carve her own path, and they made it happen.” Lisa Martin, a business executive, urged the district to invest in marketing and enrollment support for LOA and said she encountered a broken link when trying to find the program on the Minnesota Department of Education website. Martin cited a per-pupil figure she said she had seen for online students — $11,275 — and asked the district to treat LOA staff as educators, not marketers.
Speakers framed three main concerns: the program’s fit for students with medical or social needs; the financial effect of closing a program that draws state enrollment dollars; and the process by which the decision was made. Several commenters named district policies they said the closure contradicts, including Policy 209 (code of ethics), Policy 301 (school district administration), Policy 302 (superintendent duties), and Policy 605 (alternative programs).
The board did not take a formal vote on the future of LOA at the meeting. Board members and several directors engaged in a broader agenda discussion earlier in the meeting and later approved moving public comment earlier on the agenda; speakers said the change made it easier for families with young children to address the board.
Board members did not provide a timeline or a vote on LOA during public comment. The superintendent and other administrators said the administration would follow up as necessary and that individual student or staff privacy concerns should be pursued with administration outside the public forum. Several parents asked that the board treat the LOA staffing and enrollment questions as items for either the full board or a return presentation from administration.
Why it matters: Parents and district staff told the board LOA serves students who need a flexible schedule for medical appointments, advanced pacing or other needs; closing the program could force those families to find paid private alternatives or leave the district. Speakers said a closure could reduce state per-pupil funding tied to enrollment and that some policy provisions require the superintendent to identify and recommend alternative programs before eliminating one.
The board has not yet published a timetable for a decision or a staff report specifically addressing LOA enrollment trends, the district’s financial model for online students, or administrative rationale for the proposed closure. Parents asked for a one-year extension and for the district to present a detailed enrollment and budget analysis before final action.
Ending: Board members said the administration would follow up on individual concerns and that the public comment period would not prompt immediate board action that evening. Parents who spoke requested the board place the LOA question on a future agenda with full financial and programmatic detail.
