Leander ISD presents Phase 2 master plan to reconfigure Leander High School and modernize facilities
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
District staff and Pfluger Architects unveiled a phased master plan for Leander High School emphasizing security and access, improved student experience, more efficient use of square footage and program alignment; Phase 2A would add a new main entrance, cafetorium and CTE addition with Phase 2B remodeling to follow across several years contingent on bond funding.
Leander ISD staff and Pfluger Architects presented a Phase 2 master plan and facilities modernization overview for Leander High School, outlining a multi‑year, two‑phase approach intended to reorganize the campus to meet contemporary instructional and safety standards.
Jeremy (district project lead) and architect Tava Reyes said the campus, originally constructed in 1984 with many later additions, functions as a maze with narrow circulation and outdated classroom footprints. Principal Chris Simpson described cramped classrooms, a cafeteria sized for about 350 but serving roughly 1,000 students across two lunches, and 113 exterior doors that complicate access and security. Simpson said classroom sizes at Leander High School average roughly 70 square feet less per room than Texas Education Agency recommendations in parts of the campus.
Pfluger’s concept emphasizes a new spine called ‘Lions Hall’ connecting entry points, an expanded internal courtyard, a social stair and collaborative 'neighborhood' classroom groupings. The preferred scheme would add a front admin/cafeteria/cafetorium and a back CTE addition (Phase 2A) and then phase interior remodels (Phase 2B) to recover inefficient space and consolidate scattered CTE and fine‑arts programs. The presenters described a tentative schedule that expects parts of Phase 2A to start if included in a future bond, followed by staged summer work and portables for phased interior work, potentially completing Phase 2B work by about 2031.
Trustees and staff discussed capacity (district said net capacity would be similar but circulation, lunch and accessible space would improve), project phasing to minimize program disruption, mechanical and air‑quality upgrades, and how the plan aligns with student outcomes and collaborative learning. Staff emphasized the plan is informational only at this meeting; no bond authorization or formal action was taken.
Board members praised the community engagement in the planning process and asked for additional data tying facilities improvements to student outcomes; presenters said they would bring more detail on lessons learned from Phase 1 and that CFAC (Citizens’ Facilities Advisory Committee) and public feedback informed the design.