Dozens of parents, students and staff urged the Brainerd Public Schools Board on Monday to keep the Brainerd Learning Center (BLC) and MLAP program in its current building, saying the facility’s small size and specific accommodations are integral to students’ progress.

"The Brainerd Learning Center is not like other schools," Mariana Call told the board. "It provides a smaller, more personal environment for students who struggle in traditional settings. Moving the program ... would send a message to students that the safe space they finally felt like they belonged in doesn’t matter."

The nut of the public testimony was a common claim: the BLC’s physical layout and continuity of staff are not interchangeable with placement inside a larger school such as Forest View Middle or the Washington Education Center. Parents and former students said that larger environments would overwhelm many students, reintroduce bullying triggers and hinder access to needed accommodations.

"For me and my classmates ... it was crucial to exist in an environment structured to support us," Mia (Mia Christensen), a high-school senior, said of her experience with MLAP. "By taking away the Brainerd Learning Center, you would be taking away that safe space from vulnerable students who need it."

Teachers and staff described specific medical and accessibility needs that the building meets. Twila Eric Belton, who teaches at the BLC, listed students who have had cancer treatment, ports for medical care, weakened immune systems or mobility challenges and noted the building’s private bathrooms, single‑floor accessibility and dimmable quiet spaces that reduce health risks and preserve dignity.

Speakers also framed the debate as more than a facilities question. Jackie Janicek Foss read a letter emphasizing the program’s 55‑year history and warned that relocation could reduce state aid if students stop attending. Parent and community advocates asked the board to consider alternatives to moving the program and urged placing funding questions before voters rather than making cuts.

Not everyone framed the debate solely around the BLC. Several commenters linked the proposed moves to larger enrollment and budget trends. Doug Kern and Ed Shaw cited falling enrollment and the broader fiscal context, with Shaw warning of long‑term costs if marginal programs are cut and urging the community be allowed to vote on funding.

Board members did not take a formal vote on the BLC’s facility location during public comment; the testimony was delivered during the public‑input portion of the meeting, and multiple directors later referenced those concerns during deliberations about budget priorities.

What’s next: Board members and the administration indicated they will continue work-session discussions about program design and budgeting. Several public speakers urged the board to prioritize student needs and consider a levy placement for voter decision if additional local revenue is required.