One Breckenridge School Consolidation

A Long-Range Planning Process Focused on Students

The decision to consolidate Breckenridge Elementary and Upper Blue Elementary did not begin with a decision to close a school.

It grew out of a broader question:

How can Summit School District continue providing strong educational opportunities for students while enrollment is changing, facilities are aging, and the cost of operating and maintaining schools is increasing?

Over more than a year, the district studied facilities, enrollment, educational programming, and financial sustainability; considered multiple options; gathered feedback from staff, families, and community members; and revised recommendations as new information and community input became available.

The result is a long-term direction intended to strengthen educational opportunities for students while creating a more sustainable school system.

2024: Learning From the Previous Bond Measure

Following the failure of Measure 4A in Fall 2024, Summit School District took a closer look at both its long-term facility needs and what the community wanted from the planning process.

The district reviewed the election results, gathered community and staff feedback, and identified an important need for a clearer, more transparent approach to long-range facilities planning.

That work helped launch an updated 10-Year Facilities Master Plan designed to look at the district as a whole—not one building or project at a time.

The goal was to better understand how facilities, enrollment, finances, and educational priorities fit together before determining what investments or operational changes should come next.

2025: Building the Master Plan

During 2025, the district began a comprehensive review of its schools and long-term needs.

Independent facilities work examined three major areas:

• Building Condition
  What repairs, replacements, and infrastructure investments will our schools need?
• Building Utilization
  How well does the amount of space we operate align with the number of students we serve?
• Educational Adequacy
  Do our learning environments support the programs, services, collaboration, technology, and student experiences we want to provide?

The district also examined demographic and enrollment trends and began evaluating how changing enrollment could affect the sustainability of individual schools.

A Master Planning Committee met throughout Fall 2025 and into early 2026 to review information, discuss priorities, and consider potential approaches.

What the data showed

Three challenges consistently emerged:

• Enrollment was declining.
  Fewer students means less enrollment-based funding, while many costs associated with operating school buildings remain.
• Several facilities required significant investment.
  Breckenridge Elementary stood out because of the scale of its projected facility needs. The Master Plan identified approximately $24.7 million in Priority 1 and Priority 2 deferred maintenance needs at BRE, significantly more than any other elementary school.
• Operating smaller schools limits resources available for students.
  The district's analysis identified approximately 207 students as the financial break-even point for an elementary school under the current operating model, while enrollment of 300 or more creates a healthier operating environment with greater flexibility to support programming and student services.

These findings led the district to study whether operating six elementary schools remained sustainable over the long term.

Winter 2025–26: Exploring Options

Consolidation was not evaluated as a single predetermined proposal.

The Master Plan process examined multiple elementary school configurations involving Breckenridge, Upper Blue, Frisco, Summit Cove, Silverthorne, and Dillon Valley elementary schools.

Potential scenarios were evaluated against the district's guiding principles, including:

• Safe and inclusive learning environments
• High-quality educational experiences
• Responsible stewardship of community resources
• Long-range sustainability
• Future-ready learning opportunities
• Building condition and capacity
• Transportation and family impacts
• Access to programs and services
• Community disruption and school choice

As scenarios were studied, some were revised and others were removed from consideration.

The purpose was not simply to identify which building cost the most to operate. It was to understand which approach could best balance student experience, educational opportunity, facility needs, enrollment, community impact, and long-term financial sustainability.

Spring 2026: Taking the Conversation to the Community

Before a recommendation was made, Summit School District expanded the conversation to staff, families, and communities throughout the district.

Community and staff meetings were held across school communities during March and April, along with Board work sessions, presentations, a community survey, and other opportunities for feedback.

By April 24, the district's community survey had received 589 responses, in addition to feedback gathered through meetings and conversations.

What we heard

Community members did not agree on every solution—and that was important to the process.

Several themes appeared consistently:

• Keep students at the center.
  Families and staff wanted to understand how consolidation could affect class sizes, educational quality, student services, specialized programming, and relationships.
• Explain why a particular school would be consolidated.
  Community members asked for clearer and more consistent criteria for comparing options.
• Recognize the importance of neighborhood schools.
  Families emphasized that schools are more than buildings. They are part of community identity, relationships, routines, and belonging.
• Provide clearer financial information.
  Community members wanted to better understand the costs of maintaining buildings, the savings associated with consolidation, and the trade-offs among different options.
• Plan for transportation and family impacts.
• Questions about travel time, traffic, buses, winter conditions, and working-family schedules became an important part of the conversation.
• Be transparent about what is—and is not—known yet.
• Community members asked for greater clarity about the process, future use of school property, staffing, attendance boundaries, and what would happen if construction funding were not available.

The district used this feedback to further evaluate options and refine its recommendations.

April 2026: A Recommendation Emerges

After reviewing facilities information, enrollment projections, financial considerations, community feedback, and multiple consolidation scenarios, the Superintendent recommended consolidating Breckenridge Elementary with Upper Blue Elementary.

Several factors contributed to that recommendation.

• Breckenridge Elementary had substantially greater identified deferred maintenance needs than the district's other elementary schools.
• Breckenridge Elementary and Upper Blue Elementary serve neighboring communities, creating an opportunity to bring students together while maintaining an elementary school within the Breckenridge area.
• The analysis also found that combining enrollment could create a healthier school size capable of supporting strong grade-level teams, student services, programming, and more efficient use of district resources.

Importantly, the recommendation separated the decision to consolidate from the question of whether new construction should occur at Upper Blue Elementary.

That distinction allowed the Board to consider whether consolidation made educational and operational sense independently from a potential bond or construction project.

May–Summer 2026: From Evaluation to Direction

Following the Superintendent's recommendation, the Board of Education considered the consolidation question and the information gathered through the Master Plan process.

The Board ultimately established the direction to consolidate Breckenridge Elementary and Upper Blue Elementary beginning with the 2027–28 school year.

The district subsequently determined that it would not pursue a bond measure in Fall 2026, and a proposed addition at Upper Blue Elementary would not move forward at this time.

That decision changed the next phase of the work.

The question is no longer whether consolidation will occur.

The work now is determining how to implement it thoughtfully and successfully for students, staff, and families.

What Happens Next
Moving From Decision-Making to Transition Planning

Looking Ahead

Over the coming year, families and staff can expect regular updates as we reach important milestones, including:

August 2026: Transition planning and staffing process begin
Fall 2026: Committee work and ongoing community engagement
November 2026: Board consideration of a recommended name for the consolidated elementary school
Winter 2026–27: Review and adoption of attendance boundaries, followed by enrollment information for families
Spring 2027: Staffing finalized, student and family orientations, transportation planning, and operational readiness
August 2027: Opening of the consolidated elementary school

We recognize that transitions bring both excitement and uncertainty. Our commitment is to communicate openly, share information as decisions are made, and keep students at the center of every step. By working together, we can create a welcoming, supportive, and successful school community for every child.

Consolidation Planning Meeting #1
June 18, 2026

Consolidation Planning Meeting #2
August 4, 2026
 

August 20, 2016: Consolidation Planning Update (BRE/UBE) - Consolidation Process and Milestones

Summit _SSD Staff Transition Guide _September 16, 2026

Due to continued declines in student enrollment, some schools are operating well below fiscally conservative levels. Due to fixed costs, SSD schools need a minimum of 207 students to break even and 300 - 500 students to operate comfortably. Consolidation helps reduce overhead costs, enhances program offerings, and improves access to high-quality instruction for all students.

What is the sustainable enrollment size for an elementary school?
With current state funding and operational models, an elementary school needs between 207 and 300+ students to operate sustainably—but these two benchmarks represent very different financial realities.

• At **207 students**, a school is operating at the survival threshold. It can only break even by relying heavily on the district to subsidize shared services, administrative costs, and staffing inefficiencies. There is little flexibility for enrichment, unexpected costs, or instructional innovation.
• At **300- 500 students**, a school enters a more sustainable and healthy range. It can cover its own operational costs, generate a small surplus, and invest in things like intervention programs, specials teachers (art, music, PE), student support staff, and building maintenance.

**Why does this matter?** Operating well below 300 students limits what a school can offer, especially as costs rise and enrollment declines. A larger student body helps maximize resources and ensures that dollars go directly toward teaching and learning—not overhead.
 

SSD land is zoned for public use, including education. While it can be appraised (typically around $1 million for 10 acres), it cannot be sold freely for commercial development. The value lies in long-term use for public education.

No. All scenarios are being modeled using up-to-date enrollment projections and building capacities. Staff and programs will follow students to ensure class sizes remain appropriate.

The Facilities Master Plan evaluated multiple elementary consolidation scenarios to address declining enrollment, facility condition, and long-term fiscal sustainability. Looked at four smallest schools. These scenarios were modeled using enrollment projections, building capacity, and cost estimates:

• Breckenridge Elementary (BRE) → Upper Blue Elementary (UBE)
   Requires an expansion of eight classrooms at UBE.
• Frisco Elementary (FRE) → Summit Cove Elementary (SCE)
   Requires an expansion of three to five classrooms at SCE.
• Frisco Elementary (FRE) → Upper Blue Elementary (UBE)
   Requires an expansion of seven classrooms.
• BRE and FRE → Upper Blue Elementary (UBE)
   Requires a sixteen-classroom expansion.
• Summit Cove Elementary (SCE) closure with redistribution to FRE, SVE, and DVE

Yes. Transportation distance and travel time were included in the enrollment study to help understand the geographic impacts of potential scenarios. Sample comparisons include:
Breckenridge ES → Upper Blue ES: approximately 1.8 miles / ~8 minutes
Frisco ES → Upper Blue ES: approximately 8.2 miles / ~14 minutes
Summit Cove ES → Frisco ES: approximately 8.8–10.6 miles, depending on route/ 19 minutes
Summit Cove ES → Silverthorne ES: approximately 8.4 miles / ~16 minutes

Housing data was incorporated into the Facilities Master Plan to better understand where future students and staff may live. Key projects reviewed include:
Runway Project (Breckenridge): 35 deed-restricted homes near Upper Blue Elementary.
Keystone-area workforce housing: Including recently completed and planned projects intended to support local employees and families.
Lake Hill (Frisco): A large, multi-phase housing development with potential long-term enrollment impact.
Smith Ranch (Silverthorne): A completed project that has contributed to stable enrollment at Silverthorne Elementary.

These developments help inform long-range enrollment projections but do not, on their own, offset the districtwide trend of declining student numbers.
 

Not necessarily. It’s important to know that school size and class size are not the same thing. A larger school can still maintain small class sizes — it just means more classrooms and teachers are added to support the student body. Class size is determined by staffing and funding, not the total number of students in a school building.

SSD is committed to continuing services for students with Advanced Learning Plans, IEPs, and language needs. These programs will be maintained through any consolidation process.

• Fall 2025 – Spring 2026: Community engagement and scenario modeling
 • Fall 2026-27: Pending community feedback, potential implementation of non-construction changes
 • 2028+: Potential construction-based changes aligned with long-term Master Plan

District land is viewed as a strategic, long-term asset. This position is consistent with prior Board of Education direction and multiple Facilities Master Plan efforts.
Key considerations include:

• Land scarcity in Summit County and limited opportunities for future acquisition.
• Zoning limitations that prioritize public and educational use.
• Future flexibility to respond to enrollment cycles, program needs, or partnerships.
• Community value, as school sites often function as neighborhood anchors.

Rather than limiting future options, retaining land preserves opportunities for growth, adaptation, and community benefit over time.
 

We have been in contact with the Town of Breckenridge, which has conducted traffic studies in conjunction with the Phase I Runway Project.

Of note, Skier Parking has been moved north of Coyne Valley Road, which helps lessen potential conflicts between skier traffic and local travel.

It is also important to recognize that the highest skier traffic volumes typically occur on weekends and during winter holiday breaks, which do not always align with normal school commuting patterns.

If the district moves forward with a consolidation option, additional traffic analysis will be conducted in partnership with the Town of Breckenridge to ensure safe and efficient travel patterns for students, staff, and families.

New for 2025–2026:
The Town and Breckenridge Ski Resort are offering a Free Skier Shuttle Lot on McCain Drive (between Stan Miller Road and Coyne Valley Road).
Open daily 6:00 AM – 11:00 PM. This shuttle service helps reduce vehicle traffic traveling toward the ski resort and surrounding areas.

If the district moves forward with a potential consolidation option, additional traffic analysis would be conducted as part of a Phase II planning process. This would include working closely with the Town of Breckenridge and regional transportation partners to evaluate:

• School arrival and dismissal traffic patterns

• Impacts along Airport Road and nearby intersections

• Safe routes for school buses, family drop-off, and student transportation

• Opportunities to coordinate with existing transit services such as Breck Free Ride

Managing arrival and dismissal traffic is a key part of school planning. If consolidation were pursued, the district would work closely with the Town of Breckenridge and transportation partners to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow.

Planning efforts would include:

• Evaluating school site circulation patterns for buses, family drop-off, and staff parking
• Reviewing intersection and roadway capacity near the school site
• Considering staggered arrival or dismissal procedures if necessary
• Exploring opportunities to support bus transportation, walking routes, and local transit options

As noted earlier, additional traffic analysis would be conducted during Phase II planning to ensure safe and efficient transportation operations for students and families.

Any bond approved by voters would include multiple layers of financial oversight and transparency to ensure responsible use of taxpayer funds.

Typical accountability measures include:

• Board of Education oversight of all bond expenditures
• Independent financial audits to verify funds are used for voter-approved purposes
• Regular public reporting and project updates to the community
• Compliance with Colorado school finance laws and procurement requirements

These safeguards ensure that bond funds are used responsibly, transparently, and strictly for the projects approved by voters.

Responsible stewardship of community resources remains one of the district’s guiding principles in long-range planning and facility investment.

No—Breckenridge Elementary has not been ignored or left behind. The district has continued to invest in the building over the years through ongoing maintenance, safety upgrades, security improvements, and accessibility enhancements such as a wheelchair-accessible entrance and improved parking. While these updates may not always be highly visible, they are essential and reflect a consistent commitment to keeping the building safe and functional for students and staff.

At the same time, BRE is the oldest school in the district, and its age is now a significant factor. Core systems like plumbing, electrical, and structural components are at—or nearing—their expected lifespan. Even with regular upkeep, older buildings require more complex and costly repairs over time.

One way to understand this is through the Facility Condition Index (FCI), which compares the cost of repairs to the cost of replacing the building. BRE currently has a high FCI, meaning the cost to address all necessary repairs is approaching what it would take to rebuild the school entirely. This creates a challenging situation and is a key reason why the district is having thoughtful conversations about long-term solutions.

Declining enrollment can make it more difficult to sustain consistent programming and efficient operations across multiple facilities. The purpose of the planning process is to evaluate how facilities, enrollment trends, and program needs align so that students continue to have strong academic opportunities and learning environments.

Financial stewardship is one part of the conversation, but student experience and educational quality remain the primary focus.

The goal of any potential consolidation would be to strengthen academic opportunities and learning environments for students.

In some cases, bringing students and staff together in fewer buildings can allow schools to:

• Offer more consistent programming
• Provide stronger grade-level collaboration among teachers
• Expand access to specialized instruction, electives, and support services

All options are evaluated using the district’s guiding principles, including high-quality learning environments and future-ready learning opportunities.

Enrollment trends are monitored closely each year. While enrollment can fluctuate, current data and demographic projections suggest continued enrollment challenges in some grade levels and schools.

The Master Plan is designed to ensure that the district’s facilities and programs are aligned with current realities while remaining flexible for future changes.

Planning proactively allows the district to adapt responsibly rather than reacting to challenges later.

Smaller schools can offer close-knit communities, which many families value. However, when enrollment declines significantly, it can become increasingly difficult to sustain the breadth of programs, services, and staffing needed to provide a consistent educational experience for all students.

Lower enrollment can impact several areas:

Academic Opportunities
Smaller grade-level cohorts may limit the number of classes, enrichment opportunities, or specialized programs that can be offered.

Staffing and Collaboration
Teachers often benefit from working alongside colleagues at the same grade level or subject area. When enrollment declines, it may mean fewer teachers per grade, which can limit collaboration and shared instructional support.

Student Support Services
Services such as intervention support, counseling, and specialized instruction must be distributed across schools. Very small enrollment levels can make it more challenging to provide consistent access.

Facility Utilization and Costs
School buildings have fixed operational costs for maintenance, utilities, and staffing. When facilities operate significantly below capacity, it becomes more difficult to balance resources while maintaining strong programming.

For these reasons, school districts sometimes explore ways to align enrollment, facilities, and programming so that students have access to strong academic programs, collaborative teaching teams, and well-resourced learning environments.

The goal of the Master Plan is not simply to reduce buildings, but to ensure that every student has access to a high-quality, future-ready learning environment while responsibly stewarding community resources.

The previous bond proposal included rebuilding Breckenridge Elementary as one possible solution to address aging facilities. Since then, we’ve taken time to understand community perspectives better and evaluate additional factors—especially enrollment trends and long-term sustainability.

This has led to a broader set of scenarios being explored. No decisions have been made.

BRE has received ongoing investment in:

• Maintenance and repairs
• Safety and security upgrades
• Accessibility improvements

However, due to the building’s age, major systems (like plumbing, electrical, and structural components) are nearing the end of their lifecycle, which increases long-term costs.

What is the Facility Condition Index (FCI) and why does it matter?

The FCI compares the cost of needed repairs to the cost of replacing a building.

BRE currently has a high FCI, meaning: The cost to fully repair and modernize the building is approaching the cost of rebuilding. This is a key factor in considering long-term options.

Why is consolidation being discussed?

Enrollment has declined, and smaller schools can:

• Limit program offerings
• Increase operational costs
• Reduce flexibility in staffing and services

In Colorado, bonds and Mill Levy Overrides (MLOs) serve different purposes and are typically voted on separately:

Bond = Buildings
Used for things like new schools, major renovations, safety upgrades, and addressing aging facilities.

MLO = People & Programs
Supports ongoing costs like teachers, student programs, and classroom resources.

If the district were to pursue funding in the future, it could include:

• A bond for facility needs (like repairs, renovations, or construction), and/or
• An MLO for staffing and program support

Each would be clearly defined and voted on individually, so voters can understand exactly what they are supporting.

It’s also important to note:
 No decisions have been made about pursuing a bond or an MLO at this time.

Right now, we are still:

• Reviewing options
• Gathering community input
• Working to ensure any future proposal is clear, focused, and aligned with community priorities

If funding is considered later, there will be additional opportunities for input and detailed information before anything goes to a vote.

We’ve heard this idea from community members and have explored it as a potential option.

A K–6 model could offer some benefits, such as:

• Preserving neighborhood schools
• Increasing enrollment at some elementary sites
• Utilizing existing buildings without new construction

However, after thoughtful review, a K–6 structure does not fully address the core challenges we are working to solve.

For example:

• Some schools would still be too small to provide consistent programming and staffing
• Many would continue to have single classrooms per grade or combined classes
• It would not reduce operating or maintenance costs
• Resources would still be spread across too many sites, limiting our ability to scale student supports

Ultimately, while K–6 helps in some areas, it does not fully ensure sustainable, equitable, and future-ready learning environments for all students.

Shifting to a K–6 model would have significant ripple effects across the entire system.

Moving 6th grade out of the middle school would:

• Reduce middle school enrollment by about one-third, impacting programming, staffing, and sustainability
• Change the 6th grade experience, moving from a team-based middle school model to a more elementary structure

To address this, additional changes would likely need to be considered, such as:

• Moving 9th grade to the middle school
• Creating a 7–12 model or other reconfigurations

Each of these options would represent major shifts in student experience, including impacts to:

• Academic pathways and course access
• Extracurricular opportunities
• Transition points between schools

In addition, some facility challenges—such as long-term needs at specific schools—could become more difficult to address or delay, limiting future flexibility

We are committed to exploring a wide range of ideas, including K–6, and appreciate the community’s engagement. At this time, our focus remains on solutions that best support:

• Consistent, high-quality programming for all students
• Efficient use of resources
• Long-term sustainability of our schools

.

At first glance, there are some potential benefits—like using a newer building, having more space, and possibly improving things like drop-off and access.

But when we look more closely, there are a few important considerations.

One is student experience and age grouping. Bringing our youngest learners into close proximity with a much larger middle school population raises some concerns developmentally and operationally. We want to be thoughtful about creating environments that are designed specifically for each age group.

The other piece is that, on its own, this shift doesn’t really solve the bigger challenges we’re trying to address. It doesn’t significantly change:

• Overall school size and sustainability
• Our ability to scale staffing and student supports
• Long-term financial or operational efficiency

For this to have a meaningful impact, it would likely need to be paired with additional changes like consolidation or redistricting. And even then, it’s not entirely clear that we would gain true efficiencies—for example, whether support staff could realistically be shared across K–5 and 6–8 in a way that improves services for students.

So while it may offer some logistical advantages, by itself, it doesn’t fully move us toward a more sustainable and student-centered system.

No. Consolidation is one of several options being studied as part of a broader, structured Master Plan process that has been underway for several months. This process includes input from a community-based committee, meetings across Summit County, staff expertise, and analysis of enrollment, financial, and facility data.

Evaluating enrollment and how schools are utilized is a standard part of long-range planning, and no decisions have been made. Community input will continue to help shape the options before any decisions are considered by the Board of Education.

The Colorado Department of Education does not require or prohibit school consolidation decisions. These are local decisions made by school boards based on community needs.

However, CDE does provide guidance and research on conditions that support strong student outcomes. This includes:

Sustainable school size to support full programming and services
Access to qualified staff and specialists (e.g., interventionists, counselors, electives)
Efficient use of resources so funding supports classrooms rather than underutilized facilities
Safe, modern learning environments that meet current standards

In districts experiencing declining enrollment, CDE guidance and statewide trends show that spreading students across too many buildings can:

Limit academic and enrichment opportunities
Reduce staffing flexibility
Increase per-student costs

Consolidation is one strategy districts may consider to:

Strengthen academic programs
Maintain access to services
Improve long-term financial sustainability

In Summit School District, the purpose of any potential consolidation is not simply to reduce costs, but to ensure students have consistent access to strong instruction, support services, and future-ready opportunities.

After the failure of Measure 4A in November 2024, Summit School District took immediate steps to understand community and staff perspectives. We conducted a countywide survey through Magellan Strategies and partnered with the Summit County Education Association (SCEA) to gather staff feedback through an internal survey in December. Both data sets were reviewed and discussed by the Board of Education during their January 9, 2025 retreat to inform next steps.
From these efforts, we’re learning:
The bond proposal was too complex, making it difficult for voters to support all parts at once.
The tax increase was a significant concern, especially following local property tax hikes.
Many community members were understandably confused about how school funding works in Colorado — when local property tax revenue increases, the state’s contribution decreases, so schools do not receive additional funding overall. Unfortunately, this led to misinformation, with some believing SSD received more money from higher taxes and was now asking for even more.
Staff housing had mixed support, with some feeling it's beyond the district’s core role.
The Snowy Peaks model is appreciated, but constructing a new building doesn’t have broad backing.
While there is interest in a new Breckenridge Elementary, more people support exploring a consolidation with Upper Blue Elementary.
There is strong, consistent support for investments in safety, security, and building maintenance.
The expansion of Career and Technical Education (CTE) is viewed positively, though the community wants a clearer picture of how the current space is used.

We understand why this distinction raises questions, particularly as we work to bring BRE and UBE together as one school community.

Because the consolidated school will operate at the Upper Blue campus, the staffing process does affect BRE and UBE employees differently. BRE staff are considered affected or displaced through the consolidation process; that does not mean non-probationary licensed BRE staff are losing employment with Summit School District.

The MOU developed through bargaining between SSD and SCEA was specifically designed to reduce the disruption that could otherwise result from displacement. Under the MOU, affected non-probationary licensed staff will continue to be employed by SSD and will not have to apply and interview for open district positions. Instead, the Collaborative Placement Committee (CPC), made up through the agreed district/SCEA process, will work to place affected staff into open positions based on their qualifications and preferences.

Our hope and intention is to have as many BRE instructional staff as possible follow students into the Breckenridge school next year, or receive another district position aligned with their preference. We cannot guarantee a particular school or position before enrollment, staffing allocations, retirements and resignations, available positions, and staff preferences are known.

We also recognize that becoming one school is about much more than which building students and staff are coming from. Bringing two school communities together successfully will require intentional work to build a shared culture, relationships, traditions, and sense of belonging. We do not expect BRE staff simply to disappear into UBE; their experience, relationships with students, and contributions to the BRE community matter as we build the new school together.

Affected non-probationary staff will receive final placements no later than the week of March 22, 2027. If the district and SCEA are able to complete placements sooner, we will.

Bringing two schools together is not only an operational change. Schools are communities, and people build deep connections to colleagues, students, families, traditions, routines, and places. Understandably, a change of this size can bring a mix of emotions, including sadness, frustration, uncertainty, excitement, or hope. People may experience several of these at the same time.

Change often takes time to process. Early in a transition, people naturally focus on what may be changing or lost and the questions that have not yet been answered. As more becomes known and people have opportunities to participate in planning, attention can gradually shift toward understanding what the change will mean and helping shape what comes next. People will move through that process differently and at different speeds.

We do not expect staff, students, or families to simply “move on” from BRE or UBE to build a strong new school community. Honoring what people value about both schools is part of bringing them together well.

SSD’s responsibility is to be clear about what is changing and why, acknowledge the impact of those changes, provide opportunities for people to help shape the transition, and share what we know when we know it.

There will be things to grieve and things to look forward to. Both can be true. Our goal is to create the time, space, and support for our community to move through this transition together while keeping students at the center.