Board weighs two-campus and three-campus reconfiguration after steering-committee review

Board members and staff spent the bulk of the session evaluating two main reconfiguration patterns that emerged from the steering-committee process: a two-campus option and a three-campus option. Presenters summarized months of steering-committee feedback, facility-assessment results and community survey inputs to explain why options were narrowed from four to two or three campus scenarios.

“Based off of our feedback… the 1 campus option was too expensive, and the 4 campus option didn't meet the priorities that were established… so we narrowed the number of scenarios that we were looking at to the 2 or 3 campus configuration,” the presenter (S6) told the board. He added that, of the concepts evaluated, Concept A (two-campus) was ranked highest for learning environment, chosen by roughly two-thirds of respondents.

Several board members, principals and teachers raised educational and logistical concerns about transitions, class size and special education. A presenter who summarized research on transitions (S15) said research shows achievement losses can accompany repeated school transitions and listed pros and cons of both K–5 configurations and split primary/intermediate models. One board member (S9) voiced concern about predicting future kindergarten cohorts and asked whether the designs leave room for unexpected enrollment increases.

Presenters and staff outlined options to create flexible spaces and shared that the plan includes some built-in flexibility for intervention rooms and partitions so a bubble grade could be accommodated without immediate structural changes. The group discussed next steps: principals and staff will verify room counts, presenters will refine the scope and costs, and the board will be asked to choose a preferred concept before staff completes ballot language.