Ad hoc committee recommends $349 million "Model F" to modernize Wauwatosa secondary schools

A volunteer secondary school ad hoc committee presented its recommendation to the Wauwatosa School Board on March 3, 2026, urging the board to pursue "Model F," which would retain and renovate all four secondary buildings to modern learning standards, with an early cost estimate of about $349 million.

The committee's external facilitator, Paige Richards of Build Capacity Consulting, told the board the committee of 24 volunteers spent hundreds of hours touring the district's secondary facilities, reviewing the district's Analysis of Learning Spaces and hearing from education and construction experts. Richards said the committee's work was deliberately process-driven: "My job was to support this group of humans to really come together and for them to determine their own outcomes," she said, stressing the advisory role of the committee.

Committee presenters said deferred maintenance in district buildings already totals roughly $165 million and argued that simply funding only that backlog would not address accessibility, safety or the need for modern instructional spaces. "We need to, and quite frankly, have to do something," said Michael Hayden, a committee representative and East High parent, summarizing the tours and the facilities analysis that informed the group's view.

The committee's recommended Model F preserves the district's four secondary-school footprints (East, West, Whitman and Longfellow), modernizes and renovates instructional spaces, and keeps specialty facilities such as pools, theaters and athletic fields. "Model F preserves the four existing secondary school buildings ... initial estimated cost is $349 million," said Will Gilbert, a committee spokesperson.

Why Model F? Committee members said they prioritized academic outcomes and social-emotional development when scoring options. They argued moderate-size schools support belonging and engagement and preserve multiple opportunities for students to participate in athletics, music and theater. The presenters repeatedly framed extracurricular spaces as districtwide community assets: Longfellow's pool, for example, previously reached about 83 degrees Fahrenheit and hosted senior aquatics and synchronized swimming; losing that functionality, the committee said, affects older-adult classes and community programs.

Music and performance spaces were highlighted as marquee programs with urgent facility needs. Committee members told the board that band rooms regularly exceed safe sound levels and that inadequate instrument storage and climate control lead to repeated, expensive repairs. "If you spend extended time in there, that will cause hearing damage," a presenter said.

Cost, trade-offs and flexibility

The committee emphasized Model F as an initial program-level recommendation rather than a final design. The $349 million figure is an early, high-level estimate; presenters said there is room to refine scope, pursue lighter renovations in some areas and find savings in detailed design. They noted that some models that closed buildings or consolidated schools showed only modest year-over-year operational savings (the committee's analysis suggested closing buildings would not solve ongoing staffing-driven operating deficits). The group also flagged that full districtwide reconfiguration could introduce new recurring expenses: staff reported that introducing districtwide busing as a result of reconfiguration could exceed $2 million a year.

Board members pressed the committee on alternatives the group considered and on why a deferred-maintenance-only approach was eliminated. Committee members said tours, accessibility deficiencies and the scope of needed instructional upgrades made maintenance-only an inadequate solution. Several committee members acknowledged dissent: not all members preferred Model F, and the committee's final report documents dissenting opinions and alternatives considered.

Unresolved operational and planning questions

Board members and the committee discussed demographic projections, open-enrollment variability and how those numbers affect space planning. The committee noted that projections depend on policy choices (for example, open enrollment), housing developments and longer-term enrollment trends. The group also discussed whether Model F is a generational solution or an interim step; some members said the model provides generational flexibility while others emphasized recurring maintenance and future educational changes will require further planning.

The committee and board also identified technical questions that will require staff and consultant follow-up: the exact renovation scope for East High's third floor (Model F does not assume renovation of that third floor), how to sequence projects to limit disruption, and ways to refine cost estimates and potential savings in detailed design.

Next steps and public engagement

Committee members urged robust community engagement before any referendum. Presenters recommended board members tour the district's troubled spaces (e.g., flooded basements and boiler rooms) and suggested bite-sized public education (short videos, school-based listening sessions, PTA outreach and targeted events where people already gather) so voters understand the choices and trade-offs. The board and administration agreed to prepare background materials (the committee provided a historical document and a list of questions it used) and to develop a multi-month engagement plan; the board said there is no plan to place a bond referendum on the 2026 ballot at this time.

What the board will decide next

The ad hoc committee was explicitly advisory: it recommended Model F and offered supporting evidence, but the board retains decision authority. The board asked for additional materials and school tours to inform upcoming discussions; staff and committee members offered to help with public sessions and with refinement of cost and scope details. The meeting closed with the board setting follow-up work to clarify the timeline, engagement plan and the specific information the board needs to review before any formal action.