Lafayette Parish hearing on proposed KO High closure spotlights equity, transportation and legal concerns

Board members and district staff presented a plan to take KO (KOMO) High School offline as a traditional high school after the 2025–26 school year and to repurpose the campus for an expanded career and technical education center intended to open by the 2028–29 school year. The district estimated about $2.1 million in recurring staffing savings if the school were taken offline and said some programs—specifically EJ Sam and a community skills program—would continue to operate during renovation.

Why it matters: The proposal would rezone roughly 700 students to Acadiana (Aadiana) High, Lafayette High and Southside High and would move or consolidate career-technical programs that many community members say have deep historical roots on the north side of Lafayette Parish. Opponents warned relocation risks greater transport burdens, the loss of locally accessible workforce development, and the erosion of community institutions tied to Black educational history.

District presentation: At the hearing Superintendent Mr. Touched and Dr. Robling summarized enrollment trends and the district’s rationale. Dr. Robling described the plan as an attempt to expand the parish’s career-technical capacity and to operate more efficiently across sites. Miss Gardner provided attendance-zone projections and said the district’s modeling showed a projected total enrollment after rezoning of Aadiana High at about 1,783, Lafayette High at about 2,025 and Southside at about 2,012. Staff also told the hearing that the district would continue to provide transportation to career-center programs regardless of the site.

Community objections: Hundreds of residents and local organizations urged the board not to proceed with the proposed closure. Cassandra Vincent Lrange, a KOMO alumna, told the board she had reviewed a 1966 deed and warned the property may revert to the donor family if it is not used for public educational purposes: "the land reverts back to the Bo family," she said. The school board attorney read language from the deed during the hearing and said the document “states if the property ... is not used for public educational purposes ... title shall revert to the donors or their heirs,” a point multiple speakers flagged as a potential legal risk requiring counsel review.

Transportation and access concerns were a central theme. Community analyst Cesan Ljane said the district’s plan would raise the average travel distance to the career center from roughly 5.08 miles to 8.44 miles—"That's a 66% increase in average total distance," he said—and argued the increase would disproportionately affect Title I families and students who rely on nearby access. Speakers noted that longer daily routes would add fuel and driver costs and complicate bell schedules for sending schools.

Equity and history: Several speakers tied the proposal to a pattern of disinvestment in north-side neighborhoods and invoked the histories of Paul Bro and WD Smith as reasons to keep resources in the community. "This is not just about KO High School. It never has been," Sarah Bennett said, urging the board to weigh historical legacy and local economic effects when deciding where career programs should be located.

District response and alternatives: District staff and multiple board members debated trade-offs on stage. Staff said moving the career center to the KOMO site would enable a larger consolidated facility, but they acknowledged trade-offs including potential demolition or phased construction that could temporarily reduce credentialing capacity. Dr. Robling said details such as green space availability, demolition sequencing, and whether the current career center could be expanded without a multi-year shutdown needed further technical study. On transportation, a district staffer explained, "We have no plans on not transporting children to the career center regardless of where it is located," adding the district operates morning and afternoon sessions and plans routes from students’ home zones.

Funding and timing: Board members and speakers repeatedly asked the district to provide a side-by-side financial analysis: the immediate savings claimed (about $2.1 million in staff costs) versus one-time capital costs (demolition, construction, or additions) and long-term facility maintenance. Several board members said the $2.1 million staffing reduction could be used as recurring revenue to bond for capital, but residents demanded an itemized, auditable breakdown of those numbers and the capital estimates that have been floated (district staff discussed preliminary $20–35 million scales for different development scenarios). No formal vote was taken at the hearing.

Next steps: The hearing adjourned after more than three hours of public comment and board discussion. Board members said the public input will be recorded and considered before any eventual board meeting where a formal action could be taken. Community leaders urged the district to schedule a transparent workshop to present the full cost breakdown, transportation modeling, and alternatives that could preserve local programs while addressing capacity and workforce goals.

What to watch: Look for (1) a board meeting that votes on a specific plan and its financing mechanism; (2) a written district analysis comparing expansion-at-current-site vs. relocation, with itemized capital estimates and transportation models; and (3) counsel's opinion on any deed reverter or other legal restrictions affecting the KO campus.