Winona Area Public Schools board approves elementary reconfiguration over community opposition

The Winona Area Public Schools School Board on Thursday approved a reconfiguration plan for elementary schools that will take effect with the 2025–26 school year, moving all kindergarten students to Goodview and placing grades 1–4 at Jefferson and WK.

The plan, introduced by Director Jim Schul and approved by roll-call vote, includes four parts: Goodview will host all kindergarten students (including Rios kindergarten); Jefferson and WK will host all students in grades 1–4 (with WK hosting Rios students in grades 1–4); Goodview and WK will continue existing preschool programs; and the district will begin a facilities and programming planning process in January 2025 to address identified needs including accessibility and career and technical education. The motion also directs the board to consider a recommendation from Director Reebel and Superintendent Brzezinski on future preschool programming at WK before December 2025.

The vote followed roughly an hour of public comment in which parents, teachers and community members urged the board to pause the plan and seek alternatives. "The proposal for this reconfiguration appears to address a temporary issue affecting a small percentage of students yet imposes a long-term solution that could negatively impact the entire school community," said Mike Beaker, a father of four. Brian Janzic, a 24-year educator and parent, told the board his daughter asked through tears why she would have to go to a different school next year and said survey results showed about 60% of respondents opposed the proposal. Kimberly, a teacher at Goodview Elementary, said the plan "threatens to dismantle the positive culture we've worked so hard to create" and said no concrete financial analysis had been shared with the public.

Board members debated the plan at length. Supporters said the reconfiguration is intended to address inequities in class sizes and resource distribution across elementary schools and to align programming that will benefit students districtwide. Opponents and some public speakers said the process has been rushed, that costs are uncertain, and that the community’s listening-session feedback and survey results showed clear opposition. Several board members argued for tabling the proposal to give incoming board members time to weigh in; a motion to table failed.

Final roll-call votes as read aloud by the clerk recorded the following: Michael Hanriddick — yes; Jim Schul — yes; Carl Sonneman — yes; Stephanie Smith — no; Keith/Pete Watkins — no; Tina Leonard — yes; Nancy Denzer (chair) — yes. The motion therefore passed by a 5–2 margin.

Board discussion and public remarks noted cost uncertainty. A public commenter cited an estimate from architectural consultant Wold placing possible accessibility and renovation costs in a wide range (one speaker totaled separate estimates to suggest a $3.5–$4.0 million upper range), and speakers asked for clearer budgeting and information about use of the district’s Long-Term Facilities Maintenance (LTFM) funds.

Beyond the reconfiguration vote, the board handled routine business and other actions at the same meeting, including rejecting bids and authorizing a rebid for a high-school chiller project, approving new high-school course proposals, adopting several policies, certifying the levy, approving the annual audit, accepting donations (totaling roughly $55,300.91 as presented to the board), and approving budget-assumption documents and an enrollment projection for the coming budget cycle.

The board scheduled a pause and indicated the new board seated in January could revisit aspects of the district’s facilities planning; one board member suggested a motion for reconsideration could be made in January if requested by newly elected members. The board’s next organizational meeting is scheduled for Jan. 9, 2025.

Provenance: discussion of the reconfiguration begins with public comments (Mike Beaker and subsequent commenters) and continues through the board motion, debate and roll-call votes recorded later in the transcript. Specific transcript spans cited as evidence include the first public comment on reconfiguration and the later roll-call vote (see provenance segments).