Board hears motion to have superintendent review grade configurations, sparking lengthy debate on reopening closed schools
Erie City SD Committee of the Whole · January 8, 2026
Summary
Board member John Harkins asked the superintendent to "contemplate" restoring former high schools or otherwise review grade and building configurations. Members debated costs, disruption and alternatives, and solicited more neutral language for a superintendent review report.
Mister Harkins introduced a resolution (item 8.02) asking the superintendent to consider whether previously closed buildings such as Strong Vincent or East should be reestablished as high schools or whether other realignment options should be studied now that the state budget pressure has eased.
In remarks explaining the resolution, Harkins said the 2017 closures were made under extreme financial duress and that their long‑term educational effects deserve reexamination. He urged the board to give the superintendent latitude to "contemplate" reopening or other configurations without mandating abrupt action, and asked for the superintendent to report back with options rather than launching an immediate major effort.
Board members largely agreed that a reexamination is reasonable but pushed back on the resolution as originally written because it named specific schools and could be read as prescriptive and disruptive. Concerns included staffing and recurring operating costs (one board member estimated roughly $1 million per year in staffing for an added high‑school faculty), impacts on elementary and middle school configurations, and the risk of diverting attention from ongoing priorities (strategic plan, budget, facilities). Attorney Wachter and other members suggested neutral wording—requesting or directing the superintendent to review grade‑configuration alignment and present findings at an appropriate time—that would still give the superintendent information and preserve flexibility.
Several board members recounted the difficult 2017 decisions; some said the board then had no viable alternatives and acknowledged the current easing of budget pressure might justify new study. Others emphasized the scale of any reversal—potential staffing, building and demographic implications—and urged that any review be integrated with long‑range planning and presented thoughtfully to the community.
Harkins accepted amendments to the language that broadened the resolution’s scope from naming specific schools to requesting a review of grade and building configurations and asked for time for the board to discuss revisions before a formal vote. No final vote on the resolution was recorded at the Committee meeting; the item remained on next week's agenda for further refinement and possible action.
