Parents, students and staff urge Vancouver School District to keep Flex Academy as layoffs draw community ire

Dozens of parents, students and district staff used a public hearing at a Vancouver School District board meeting to plead for preserving Flex Academy (operating under school-entity Lewis & Clark, commonly called Lehi), calling the program a "second chance" that supports students with complex needs and warning that moving or closing it would damage student safety and could increase long-term costs.

Speakers described Flex as a small, intensive high school that combines therapy-informed supports with academic instruction, and said many students there would not get comparable services in the district’s advertised alternatives such as tailored learning options, Star or Success programs. "Flex is where students who didn't fit elsewhere finally feel like they belong," parent Jolene Garrett said during the hearing. Student Tanner Allen told the board, "I would not be here right now if it wasn't for Flex."

The board’s interim superintendent outlined the district's fiscal and operational rationale for the recommendation to retire school-entity 3932: an internal analysis presented to the board and attributed to OSPI found Lehi’s per-student operating cost about 50% higher than the district's comprehensive high schools, and the district said retiring the entity would allow repurposing the campus for high-demand programs and improve system coherence. The interim superintendent also described implementation steps and a timetable for staffing allocations and recall pools.

But many speakers questioned the district’s assumptions and the completeness of its analysis. An independent commenter and parent requested a comprehensive net-savings model showing how costs absorbed elsewhere would affect overall budget projections; a civic attorney and school financial commenter warned of "cost shifting" rather than true savings and of legal risks if the board’s decision is treated as predetermined before a full public process. "The analysis treats cost shifting as cost savings," one commenter said, arguing the district had not shown that receiving schools could absorb additional students and services without further staffing or reduced services.

Multiple speakers raised civil-rights and equity concerns: a kindergarten teacher cited the district’s equity policy (equity policy 0010) and testimony arguing Title 1 elementary schools had absorbed a disproportionate share of RIF notices. Parents and staff also said the district had handled notifications in ways that increased anxiety and decreased trust.

Several classified staff and paraeducators described reductions in clerical and counseling positions that they said would reduce safety and student supports across the district. A career-center clerk described the range of services clerks provide — FAFSA and scholarship support, work-based learning coordination — and said eliminating those positions would undermine long-term student outcomes.

The meeting included an extended public-comment sequence in which schools’ teachers, parents and students described concrete consequences of recent reduction-in-force (RIF) notices: larger class sizes, fewer counselors, canceled CTE classes and lost continuity for students who rely on trusted adults. Teachers and parents repeatedly asked the board to consider alternatives such as consolidating under-enrolled elementary campuses, phasing programs rather than abruptly retiring a school entity, voluntary administrative furloughs, or other targeted savings to avoid dismantling programs that speakers said demonstrably work.

The hearing concluded after several hours of testimony; the transcript does not record a board vote on retiring Lewis & Clark/Lehi during this meeting. Earlier in the agenda the board approved minutes, passed the consent agenda, and adopted three policies on second reading (learning assistance policy language updates, guidance and counseling nondiscrimination updates to reflect changes in RCW 28A.642.010, and bid-threshold updates to match federal procurement levels). Those routine motions passed by roll-call votes recorded in the transcript.