Parents, teachers and staff urge Winona school board to rescind elementary reconfiguration; board member signals intent to revisit vote

A wave of public comments at the Winona Area Public School District Board of Education meeting focused on a December board action to reconfigure the district’s elementary schools. Dozens of parents, teachers and staff urged the board to reverse that decision, saying the change would harm students with disabilities, fragment families and risk staff departures and enrollment declines.

Speakers at the public-comment portion described a range of concerns about the reconfiguration approved Dec. 19, which would move large groups of students between buildings, separate kindergarten cohorts from older peers and shift special-education placements. The comments repeatedly requested the board rescind the prior vote and pursue a more fully developed plan informed by data, accessibility reviews and clarified budget impacts.

“I will not compromise when it comes to my child’s education,” said Britney, who identified herself as a WAPS graduate and parent, summarizing the sentiment of many speakers who said they felt the decision had been made without adequate consideration of community input. Several parents said they would consider withdrawing their children from district schools rather than accept the proposed changes.

Staff and special‑education advocates described specific accessibility risks. Wendy, a special‑education educational assistant at Goodview Elementary, told the board that one 9‑year‑old student in a wheelchair would lose daily independence if moved to a building with multi‑floor circulation. “She travels from her classroom to art, lunch, music, PE, library, and recess on her own in line with her classmates,” Wendy said. Moving that student, she explained, would require elevator trips, ramps and longer travel time that would reduce instructional and recess time and “single her out from the rest.”

Third‑grade teacher Bridal Brown asked new board members to reverse the decision, saying the change would not solve the problems it purports to address. “The plan to reconfigure simply will not solve any of the so‑called problems it is meant to,” she said, urging board members to “be a delegate for our schools and our community.”

Special‑education teacher Sarah Mickelson told the board that the proposal would “harm one of the most vulnerable populations of our students by taking away accessibility and independence from them,” and asked trustees to refocus district priorities on federally required projects such as updating locker rooms over a large reconfiguration.

Other parents and staff raised operational questions about busing, costs and the effect on community trust. Amber Bison, a former teacher and parent, asked how the district would bus young children long distances given state time limits and limited wheelchair‑accessible buses. “There are time restrictions on how long a kindergartner… can be on a bus, and it’s an hour,” she said. Several speakers said staff had notified the district they planned to resign if the reconfiguration proceeds, and others said they were exploring alternative schools.

In response to public comment, a board member announced a formal notice of intent to seek rescission of the Dec. 19 reconfiguration vote; the speaker did not request immediate action that night but said they would pursue placing the rescission on a future agenda. Board leaders clarified the procedural pathway for rescinding a prior action: under the board’s rules and Roberts Rules of Order as the board applies them, a motion to rescind typically must be made by a board member who voted in favor of the original motion. Chair Nancy Denzer explained that “when a board makes a decision … you can’t bring that same discussion back” unless the procedural requirements for rescission are met and followed.

Why it matters: the reconfiguration affects elementary students’ school assignments, special‑education placements, busing routes and neighborhood access to schools. Several speakers told trustees the move could lead to enrollment declines and staff departures, which would have budgetary and community consequences.

What the board said it will do next: the board recorded public comment and clarified procedural requirements for rescission. A board member gave notice of intent to move to rescind the Dec. 19 action; whether that item will appear on a future agenda depends on procedural steps and the willingness of a trustee who voted in favor of the December motion to bring rescission forward.

Representative public comments (selected) - Britney (WAPS graduate, parent): “I will not compromise when it comes to my child’s education.” - Wendy (special‑education paraprofessional, Goodview Elementary): detailed how moving a student in a wheelchair would require elevator trips and longer travel, reducing instructional and recess time. - Bridal Brown (third‑grade teacher): “The plan to reconfigure simply will not solve any of the so‑called problems it is meant to.” - Sarah Mickelson (special‑education teacher): urged the board to rescind and focus on other district priorities and federally required projects. - Amber Bison (former teacher, parent): raised concerns about bus time limits and wheelchair‑accessible transportation and said she had not seen a comprehensive budget or implementation plan.

Meeting context: the board’s organizational meeting and a lengthy public‑comment period drew a large turnout of parents, staff and community members objecting to the December decision. Board chair and administration described the rules and next procedural steps for any rescission effort; no rescission motion was taken that evening.