Category: Schools

When we last checked in with the School Board, the path toward a November referendum was coming into focus. This week’s meeting shed more light on the coming details, and specifically, what next Tuesday’s community focus groups may actually look like. Additionally, the board discussed what the Village has requested from the district on the Armory Memorial if they create a formal memorandum of understanding, and whether a community survey is happening.

Key Takeaways from the School Board Meeting: A Path Forward Coming into Focus

To view Superintendent Dr. Jamie Foeckler’s memo that outlined much of the referendum discussion, click here (loaded to Dropbox, for those not fond of Boarddocs). 

Here’s what was debated from my perspective.

The Village Wants an Answer: Building or Green Space?

Last time, we talked about how the Village and the School District wanted to formalize their potential transfer of property (the Village owns the Armory Park land) should the School District decide to move forward with a plan for a new middle school on the site. Architect Nicholas Kent from PRA walked through what a memorial could look like if a new middle school were built at Armory Park. He was careful to stress that there are no designs at this point, but the concept identified three exterior opportunities:

• The northeast corner facing Lake Drive, where the memorial sits today, as a high-visibility anchor that could incorporate elements of the existing memorial
• The east face of the building along Ardmore, which could extend the memorial experience southward
• The south face overlooking the playfield, a future potential gathering spot for events like the well attended Memorial Day ceremonies

The Village would need the district to choose, for purposes of the memorandum of understanding, whether the memorial would be integrated into the new building or rebuilt on the green space that would open up at the current middle school site. And for all of this to align with the timing of a November referendum, it would likely need that answer by the end of August.

Several board members weren’t ready to commit. One pointed out that the Armory has been at least a small part of educating Whitefish Bay students since 1932, and that the memorial group and veteran community haven’t yet weighed in. The suggestion was even floated that the answer might be “both”: a prominent memorial at the new building plus a garden space at the vacated middle school site.

Focus Group Format: Set for Next Tuesday

The first focus group is June 16, with a second on July 14. About 100 residents have signed up so far (there is still time to sign up). The potential structure:

Tables of six to seven people, each with a moderator/note-taker from the administrative team or partner groups.

After considerable wordsmithing, the board seemed to land on three questions for discussion:

1. Please share why you voted the way you did on the referendum question. (Non-voters will be asked to share their perspectives.)
2. What stands out to you as the greatest needs and constraints across our facilities?
3. Please share your thoughts on tax impact tolerance.

The board was clear the tax tolerance discussion should stay at the level of an overall number, not get tied to specific projects. A reference sheet recapping the April referendum projects may also be on each table, deliberately framed as what was proposed, not what will be proposed. As one board member put it, the projects may change but “the needs are constant.”

Running beneath the question-wording debate was a familiar tension: is the board open to completely new proposals, or is this process headed toward a relative do-over of the April referendum with a smaller price tag? One member stressed that the sessions should be about collecting community feedback before the board comes up with a referendum question — not that the board has a question in mind that they are asking people to give feedback on. Others were equally insistent that nothing fundamental has changed since the April vote: the needs identified six months ago are the same needs today. 

The Survey is Back on the Table

The board supported moving forward with a community survey, this time through the Donovan Group, the communications firm hired last month. The board president was blunt about the reasoning: the focus groups will reach less than a tenth of the community, and quantitative data is needed alongside the qualitative.

The timeline is tight. The Donovan Group will provide a draft within days, board members will submit individual feedback by Monday, and the board needs to approve a final version at its June 17 meeting. The survey will then run the full month of July, with a postcard and QR code going out to the community.

Notably, this process will differ from the earlier survey used before the April referendum. It will be web-based, every resident in a household can take it (a point of confusion last time), and paper copies will be available if needed.

Enrollment Watch

The School Board also discussed new enrollment projections for next year. There has been significant discussion about the numbers in the past in the context of investing in the distinct’s future needs. The overall projected numbers are down from this school year, but still ahead of the projected numbers from the Community Change & Projections Report in 2025. 

Total enrollment across the four schools is projected to be 2,837 students for the 2026-2027 school year. The most recent numbers from January were 2,896 students. The CC&P Report had projected a drop to 2,783 students for 2027.   

The report had also concluded that nearly 100% of the recent historical drop in enrollment for Whitefish Bay was due to 1) the sunsetting of the Chapter 220 program due to changes at the state level and 2) the choice to not take any students through the open enrollment option from outside of the district. Chapter 220 enrollment next year will decrease from 37 students to 22 and will drop to 0 in two years.

The calendar gets tight from here: The first focus group is Tuesday, June 16th, with a second on July 14th. The survey window would last the month of July with results landing at the August 12th board meeting, where a draft referendum question would need to take shape, before the August 25th statutory deadline.

Most Villagers are aware of the excellent academics, but maybe equally impressive is the athletic success of the student-athletes within the Whitefish Bay School District. Did you know that Whitefish Bay ranks second in the state for total WIAA team titles? If recent history is any guide, there realistically may be a new number one as early as next school year. Today, we take a look at the numbers.

Blue Dukes on the Big Stage: Whitefish Bay Alumni Competing in NCAA Division I Athletics in 2025-26

The WIAA lists team state championships dating back to 1895, when Milwaukee’s East High School (now known as Milwaukee Riverside) won a boys track & field championship held at the University of Wisconsin’s Camp Randall Stadium on June 8th of that year. In the 131 years since, no school in Wisconsin has accumulated more team titles than Madison West (93), followed by Whitefish Bay (90).

All Time WIAA Team Titles

The full WIAA list can be found here and reflects team championships through the beginning of this school year. The list above was updated by the WFB Buzz to reflect the standings as of May 2026. The list does not include WISAA championships (sorry, Marquette High graduates, I don’t make the rules) which merged with the WIAA in 2000. The WISAA encompassed private schools who played in separate conferences and competed for separate state titles from public schools prior to 2000.

A Diverse Track Record 

Whitefish Bay’s student-athletes have won at least one state championship across 17 unique boys/girls sports. One of the most storied athletic legacies at the high school is in track and field. The Blue Dukes have won 18 team track and field state championships in their history, headlined by an almost unimaginable stretch of dominance: 16 consecutive state titles from 1937 to 1952. That run stands as one of the longest dynasty streaks in Wisconsin prep sports history, across any sport. Incredibly, a few videos from this era have recently surfaced and have been posted by the baystrackhistory blog. 

2025-26: A Historic Year

This school year may be the most decorated in recent memory. The Blue Dukes have already won five state team championships, with the spring sports season still underway. The 1998 season also saw the school bring home five championships.

Girls Swimming & Diving – D2 Champions (November 2025) After winning their first-ever title in 2024, the girls swim team made an emphatic statement with a dominant repeat. 

Boys Soccer – D2 Champions (November 2025) The boys soccer team defeated top-seeded DeForest 3-1 to add to seven prior state championships for the program.

Boys Swimming & Diving – D2 Champions (February 2026) Following in the girls footsteps, the boys completed a 2025-26 school year D2 swimming sweep, winning their sixth program title in school history.

Girls Basketball – D2 Champions (March 2026) In one of the most dramatic finishes of the tournament, the Blue Dukes beat Beaver Dam 64-63 on a defensive stop in the final seconds, winning the program’s first-ever girls basketball state title.

Boys Basketball – D2 Champions (March 2026) One week later, the boys team completed the school’s first-ever basketball boys/girls double state championships, routing Slinger 77-46 at the Kohl Center. The program won boys basketball state titles previously in 1996, 1998, and 2011.

Still Playing for More

With two weeks left in the spring sports tournament season, Whitefish Bay has a few more opportunities to add to its total. The North Shore Conference co-champion baseball squad is a #1 seed in their sectional for the state tournament. The girls soccer team is a #2 seed in their sectional. And the Conference champion boys tennis team enters the WIAA team state tournament as the #1 seed in Division 2.

A tip of the hat to our neighbors to the North – Nicolet (your author’s alma mater) comes in at number five in the state and our neighbors to the South – Shorewood comes in tied for number twelve on the list. 

The current first place school Madison West High School has won three state titles over the past decade. Comparing that with the 16 titles won by Whitefish Bay High School in the past 10 years, and one may notice that the gap has been closing quickly. By this time next year, there just might be a new title holder for Most WIAA Team Championships in Wisconsin.

Two weeks ago, when we last checked in with the School Board, the path ahead for the next referendum was rather murky. The board was debating on a date, whether to bring in a third party to facilitate community sessions, what level of cost the community would support and what option the board may push for on the middle school. 

Fast forward to this week and the view is starting to come into focus after Wednesday night’s nearly three-hour meeting. Here are my key observations and takeaways.

The board’s discussion centered around a memo drafted by the Superintendent Dr. Jamie Foeckler. For those not fond of navigating BoardDocs, the memo can be found here.

What hasn’t changed from earlier meetings is the priority of any new referendum – the middle school. That remains the focus and centerpiece of the next referendum. While nothing is set in stone, it appears the School Board is leaning towards revisiting the rebuild option on Armory Park, while incorporating a replacement memorial either into the new structure and/or replacing it within the green space that would subsequently open up at the current middle school site.

The numbers being discussed are lower than the $135.6 million proposed in April 2026. While not a main focus of the discussion at the board meeting, the memo described three potential options. The district would commit $17 million in district capital from current funds, down from $20 million proposed in April:

• Option A — $90.2M net referendum ask (Gross: $107.2M): New middle school ($67.7M), high school mechanical systems and fire protection ($35.5M), elementary fire protection and alarms ($4M)
• Option B — $99.9M net referendum ask (Gross: $116.9M): Everything in Option A, plus safety and security upgrades for all buildings ($9.7M)
• Option C — $111.5M net referendum ask (Gross: $128.5M): Everything in Options A and B, plus HVAC upgrades for elementary schools ($11.6M)

The tax impact on the average Whitefish Bay home (assessed at $685,800) would range from $857/year for Option A to $1,173/year for Option C, assuming 22-year borrowing at 4.5% interest. Notably, the district is set to pay off its 2009 referendum debt later this year, so those figures reflect that reduction.

The Timeline Is Tight — Very Tight

The memo lays out a schedule that leaves almost no margin for error. The August 25th statutory deadline for a November referendum means the board would prefer to finalize ballot language by August 12th.

That is a compressed window if the board decides to hold formal community engagement sessions or conduct a new survey. The board discussed the effectiveness of a community survey held during the summer months. The practical challenge of conducting a survey in June and July may yield a lower response rate, a point the communications consultant (more on that below) later reinforced.

The MOU Discussion

For Villagers watching closely, the Village Board went into closed session during their last meeting “regarding Whitefish Bay School District’s use of park land.” Some clues about what that discussion may have been about emerged at the School Board meeting. A significant portion of the meeting was spent on whether to formalize a Memorandum of Understanding with the Village regarding the potential land use at Armory Park for a new middle school.

Some board members were eager to move forward with a memorandum ahead of time, arguing it addresses a specific concern raised by voters — that the village land deal was too vague and unformalized in the prior referendum. Others felt it was premature to lock anything in writing before hearing from the community, given there is no guarantee that the board will move forward with any Armory Park building. Ultimately, the tight timeline may dictate a necessity to put the cart before the horse in certain instances.   

The Armory Memorial: Creating Visuals

One of the more emotionally charged undercurrents in the meeting was the Armory Memorial. The memo raises two design concepts that align with the earlier referendum: integrating the memorial into the exterior of a new middle school, or rebuilding it within new green space on the current middle school site. This time around, there would likely be effort put into creating visuals and design concepts of the memorial for the public to review.

Several board members emphasized that any visual presentation of what the memorial might look like needs to involve the veteran community and other stakeholders before anything is released publicly. One board member noted that opposition messaging during the April campaign framed the project as the destruction of the memorial rather than its relocation or enhancement, a characterization that stuck, fairly or not. Getting ahead of that with community-developed visuals, rather than board-developed ones, could be the difference between winning or losing that specific argument the second time around.

The Board Will Soon Be Debt-Free (Pending a Future Referendum, Of Course)

Somewhat buried amid the referendum discussion was a resolution the board unanimously passed. The board voted to pay off two remaining debt obligations early, bonds from 2013 and a loan from 2010, which were all set to mature between 2027 and 2030.

The financial reasoning: the district estimates that by paying off within this fiscal year rather than next, its projected state equalization aid for next year would increase by approximately $600,000, meaning $600,000 less needed to be levied from the community. The district also estimates that there would be roughly $20,000 in interest savings from the move.

Meet the New Communications Consultant: Donovan Group

The board approved hiring the Donovan Group, a Wisconsin-based communications firm, to provide “comprehensive ballot measure campaign support” at a cost of $30,000. Brian Nicol, a partner with the firm and a former communications director in the Howard-Suamico School District near Green Bay, presented to the board.

The board mentioned that they did not identify a finalist for the separate community engagement facilitator role. It had appeared that the community engagement facilitator RFP was the priority in prior meetings, while the RFP for the communications consultant was secondary. The scope of services of the Donovan Group contract leaves open the possibility that they may play both roles rather than necessitating the district needing to hire a second consultant.

The Bigger Picture

While the path is still being paved, Tuesday’s meeting offered plenty of hints at the board’s preferred direction. Several members were candid that building the middle school at Armory Park, with the memorial relocated or incorporated into the new design, remains their leading option. Others pushed back, arguing that community sessions shouldn’t be framed around a conclusion the board may have already reached.

The next School Board meeting is June 10th, with potential community engagement sessions proposed for June 16th and July 14th. More to come.

As we head into the final stretch of the school year, I felt it was a good moment to check in on Whitefish Bay High School alumni playing D1 sports. A remarkable group of Blue Duke alumni are competing at the highest level of college athletics this year. Creating a list wasn’t the easiest task, so please let me know if I missed anyone competing at the D1 level. 

Here’s a look at where they are and how they’ve performed:

FOOTBALL

Joe Brunner — Offensive Line, Indiana Hoosiers (WFB Class of 2022) After four seasons at Wisconsin, including two years as a starting left guard with 24 consecutive starts, Brunner entered the transfer portal and joined Indiana for the 2026 season, his final year of eligibility. He earned All-Big Ten Honorable Mention honors following the 2025 campaign with the Badgers and is expected to start at left guard for a Hoosiers program coming off a national championship. 

Caleb Bowers — Long Snapper, Florida State Seminoles (WFB Class of 2022) Bowers arrived at Florida State for 2026 after a four-year career at North Dakota State, where he appeared in 44 consecutive games. In his final season with the Bison in 2025, he was named a Stats Perform FCS All-American and earned First Team All-Missouri Valley Football Conference honors, all while being part of the NDSU program that won the 2024 FCS National Championship.

Grover Bortolotti — Running Back, Wisconsin Badgers (WFB Class of 2021) In his final season in 2025, Bortolotti played in all 12 games primarily on special teams, recording six tackles. The Whitefish Bay native finished his five-year career at Wisconsin before transitioning directly into coaching. He was hired as assistant running backs coach at Michigan State in March 2026.

Harrison Bortolotti — Running Back, Wisconsin Badgers (WFB Class of 2025) Bortolotti joined Wisconsin as a preferred walk-on in fall 2025. He played in five games as a true freshman, primarily on special teams.

Nick Bakken — Offensive Line, Washington State Cougars (WFB Class of 2024) Bakken transferred to Washington State from South Dakota State ahead of the 2025 season. He appeared in one game for the Cougars before an injury ended his year early.

BASEBALL

Jack Counsell — Infielder, Northwestern Wildcats (WFB Class of 2023) The son of Cubs manager Craig Counsell transferred from Michigan to Northwestern ahead of 2025. He started 18 games, playing mostly second base and DH while hitting .250 for the season.

Tyler Andrews — Pitcher, UW–Milwaukee Panthers (WFB Class of 2024) Andrews is in his sophomore season with the Panthers of the Horizon League and pitched in 10.2 innings this year.

Michael Lippe — Outfielder, Minnesota Gophers (WFB Class of 2022) After three seasons at Louisville, Lippe transferred to Minnesota for his senior year in 2026. He has been an active contributor, starting 28 games with a batting average of .221.

SOCCER

Lucia Englund — Defender, Iowa Hawkeyes (WFB Class of 2023) Englund transferred this off season to Iowa following an outstanding junior season at Butler in fall 2025. She earned All-Big East Second Team honors. She started all 16 matches and was named Big East Defensive Player of the Week after scoring the game-winning goal and adding an assist in a 3-1 win over Providence. She also earned the CSC Academic All-District recognition.

Sofia Englund — Forward/Midfielder, St. Thomas Tommies (WFB Class of 2023) Englund appeared in 14 matches with 13 starts in 2025 and earned the CSC Academic All-District recognition.  

Ella Luna — Midfielder, Creighton Bluejays (WFB Class of 2023) After a season at Ole Miss, Luna transferred to Creighton for the 2024 season. She scored the opening goal of Creighton’s year against Oklahoma on August 14 and appeared in three matches for the Bluejays.

Breon Jarvis — Defender, UW–Milwaukee Panthers (WFB Class of 2024) Jarvis finished his sophomore season with the UWM men’s soccer program making eight starts and appearing in 18 of the team’s 19 games. He was named to the Horizon League Academic Honor Roll.

Will Smith — Defender, Wisconsin Badgers (WFB Class of 2022) Smith served as a team captain for the Badgers in his junior season in fall 2025, starting nine of 12 games.

Quinn Muderlak – Midfielder, Air Force Academy Falcons (WFB Class of 2025) Muderlak earned 11 starts and scored one goal in his freshman season this year.

SWIMMING & DIVING

Casey Stephens — Miami (Ohio) RedHawks (WFB class of 2023) Stephens fought through injuries this year and earned CSC Academic All-District and Academic All-MAC team honors.  In 2025, she won the MAC Championship in the 1,650-yard freestyle (16:45.72) and received First Team All-MAC honors.

TRACK & FIELD / CROSS COUNTRY

Lola Kolawole — Virginia Cavaliers (WFB Class of 2023) In outdoor 2026, Kolawole recorded a personal best in the 200m (24.38) to finish 3rd at the Virginia Grand Prix. She also won the 200m at the Virginia Challenge. Last year, Kolawole earned All-ACC Academic Team honors.

Paige Haglund — Marquette Golden Eagles (WFB Class of 2025) Haglund joined Marquette’s cross country and track program as a freshman in 2025-26. She competed in five events this year and ran a personal best in the 400m (1:04.7) at the Tierney Classic. She also ran a personal best mile (5:20.54) at the Red Hawk Invite.

Lily Kriegel — Vanderbilt Commodores (WFB Class of 2024) Kriegel excelled in her sophomore year running for Vanderbilt. She holds multiple school records, including the 3,000 meters (9:05.28) and the outdoor 5,000 meters (15:56.34). She earned a spot on the SEC Academic Honor Roll as well this year.

Jonathan Lukas — Creighton Bluejays (WFB Class of 2022) Completed his senior season this year at Creighton in the Big East. Placed 4th in the 3000 meters (8:59.34) at the Prairie Wolf Indoor. In 2024-25, finished with the seventh-fastest 3,000 meters in Creighton history with a time of 8:55.90 at the Musco Twilight.

VOLLEYBALL

Zoe Behrendt — Setter, North Carolina Tar Heels (WFB Class of 2023) As a Junior, Behrednt was selected as one of the team’s captains this past year. Finished the year with 675 assists, 21 service aces, and 224 digs. She has appeared in every match across the course of her college career.

LACROSSE

Chloe Bowers — Attack, UMass-Lowell River Hawks (WFB Class of 2024) Bowers has been one of the most prolific offensive players in UMass Lowell history since arriving in Lowell. As a freshman in 2024, she set a then-program record with 48 goals in a single season. In her junior campaign this year, she started 11 games and scored 25 goals.

Whitefish Bay and Shorewood sit side by side in the North Shore. Similar in physical size, population, and aging infrastructure issues and historically both regarded as among the strongest school districts in Wisconsin. But in 2026, the two communities are navigating strikingly different challenges when it comes to their schools. One is wrestling with what to build. The other is wrestling with what to close.

Shorewood resident Brian Stoffel recently posted a video in local Facebook groups to raise awareness and explain the complexities at play within Shorewood’s school system. I was able to connect with Brian to learn more about what is happening in Shorewood with a potential closing of the Shorewood Intermediate School and how it may or may not be relevant to the conversation in Whitefish Bay (hint, it’s probably less relevant than some may hope).

First, an Overview of The Communities Behind the Districts

The demographic differences between the two villages are modest but meaningful when it comes to school enrollment.

Whitefish Bay, with a 2025 population of 14,489, skews young: 31% of residents are under 18 years of age (well above the national average of 21.5%) and only 14% are 65 or older according to the US Census Bureau. 

Shorewood, at 13,474 residents, looks quite different. Only 19% of the population is under 18, below the national average, and 17% are 65 or older. 

Whitefish Bay’s district enrolled 2,861 students in 2024-25 or 49% more than Shorewood’s 1,916. But the headline enrollment numbers don’t fully capture either district’s situation.

As was laid out in Whitefish Bay School District’s Community Change & Student Enrollment Projections Report last year, overall enrollment has declined about 8% over the past decade. Two-thirds of that decline is attributable to the wind-down of the Chapter 220 integration program: as of 2024, only 37 Chapter 220 students remain, down from higher levels earlier in the decade. Non-220 open enrollment also dropped from 59 students to zero. Strip those program changes out, and Whitefish Bay’s enrollment of district-resident students has declined by less than 1%, a remarkably stable local base. 

Last year’s report concluded a projected decrease of 128 students between 2024 and 2040. With almost two years of look-back on that report at our disposal today, it should be noted that attendance so far has gone the other direction from the report’s predictions. At the start of this school year, attendance increased to 2,878 and the district’s enrollment in January jumped to 2,896, which is a 113 student difference compared to the projected trend in the report of 2,783 for the 2026-27 school year. 

As Brian shared with me, Shorewood tells a different story. The district’s enrollment has seen a steady decline over the past 10 years with a recent peak in the 2016-17 school year at 2,163 students. Enrollment has declined since, with a notable drop around 2019-20. The district currently sits at 1,916 students, down 11% from that peak, and unlike Whitefish Bay, the drop reflects broader demographic shifts rather than program changes. The Shorewood district has been working to align staffing levels with enrollment trends to maintain financial stability.

Buildings, Space, and the Utilization Question

This is where Brian and I noted the two districts’ situations diverge most sharply and where the comparison gets most instructive.

Whitefish Bay operates four active school buildings (Richards, Cumberland, the Middle School, and the High School) plus the Lydell Community Center, totaling 660,000 square feet on nearly 40 acres. Not including Lydell, the district has 638,335 square feet across 34 acres. With 2,861 students, that works out to roughly 223 square feet per student.

Shorewood operates four school buildings (Atwater Elementary, Lake Bluff Elementary, Shorewood Intermediate School, and the High School) totaling 516,575 square feet. With 1,916 students, Shorewood has about 270 square feet per student or 20% more space per student than Whitefish Bay.

One wrinkle Brian felt it worth noting when comparing available square footage of the facilities: Shorewood High School was designed more like a college campus than a traditional school, with non-connected buildings spread across the grounds. That makes the district’s total square footage figures somewhat hard to interpret, though it likely undercounts the true square footage in comparison to Whitefish Bay’s.

Shorewood Intermediate School currently serves approximately 300 students in grades 7 and 8. Brian explained that under the consolidation scenario being considered, those students could move to the high school campus, though key details haven’t been released yet. It’s still unclear exactly how the set up may work. For example, Brian suggested that the 7th and 8th graders might still be able to use the SIS cafeteria or the middle school athletic teams may continue to use the SIS gym even after the building otherwise closes. 

Spending: Whitefish Bay Does More With Less Per Student

The financial comparison between the two districts is striking as well. Both districts had similar total revenues in 2022-23 (the most recent available from the National Center for Education Statistics in the US Department of Education): Whitefish Bay at $46.2 million, Shorewood at $41.3 million. But because Whitefish Bay serves 49% more students, its per-pupil cost is substantially lower, spending $8k/student less or a whopping difference of 36%.

	WFB	Shorewood
Total Revenue (’22-’23)	$46.2M	$41.3M
Revenue per Student	$16k	$21k
Total Spending (’22-’23)	$40.8M	$42.8M
Spending per Student	$14k	$22k
Total Students (’24-’25)	2,861	1,916
Teachers (FTE ’24-’25)	179	131.2
Student/Teacher Ratio	16:1	15:1

The income gap between the two communities adds important context. Whitefish Bay’s median household income of $157,109 is nearly double Shorewood’s $86,726 (US Census Bureau). Combined with Whitefish Bay’s significantly lower per-student spending, the two districts are operating with very different relationships between what they spend and what their residents can bear, a gap that shapes every conversation about referendums, tax levies, and facilities investment. 

Shorewood’s Budget Pressure

Shorewood currently relies on an operating referendum, approved by voters in 2023, that allows the district to levy an extra $5.5 million per year beyond the state formula. That referendum runs through approximately 2028. As Brian states it, the challenge is that even if the district comes back to voters asking to continue at the same $5.5 million level, the projected need by 2028 is closer to $7.5 million annually. That’s a roughly $2 million structural gap, driven primarily by salaries increasing roughly 3% per year and health insurance costs rising as much as 10% annually, all while enrollment is flat or declining.

Closing SIS, according to the district’s long-term sustainability task force, could save $1 to $1.5 million per year by eliminating duplicated administrative roles and reducing facilities operating costs across one fewer building. That’s a significant chunk of the gap, though by itself doesn’t close it entirely.

Brian makes one observation that lands with particular force: Whitefish Bay spends less on average teacher pay and if Shorewood paid its teachers at the same average rate as Whitefish Bay, the savings would make a substantial dent in the district’s budget shortfall if not even eliminate it. His broader takeaway is that Whitefish Bay, on a per-student basis, is running an unusually efficient operation and that efficiency gap is a big part of why the solutions that make sense for Shorewood won’t translate across the village line. 

Two Different Problems, One Shared Lesson

Whitefish Bay’s challenge is a building problem: its middle school is at 94% capacity in facilities that are aging and increasingly inadequate, and the district is trying to figure out whether to renovate or build new, a question that involves significant community investment either way. The Whitefish Bay School Board is now embarking on a summer community engagement process before deciding whether to return to voters in November 2026.

Shorewood’s challenge is an enrollment-and-capacity problem on top of an operational budget deficit: too much building for too few students, with budget pressure forcing difficult staffing decisions. Considering closing the Intermediate School building and moving 7th and 8th graders to the high school campus may be a logical response to those realities — but it comes with real disruption to a roughly 300-student community that, by most academic measures, is functioning well, and where students currently enjoy a distinct middle school experience that would look quite different inside a high school building.

Brian, whose video series on Shorewood’s school district challenges was the genesis of this comparison, puts it well: the two districts may be neighbors, but their problems are fundamentally different in kind. Borrowing solutions across that divide is unlikely to serve either community well. The value of the comparison isn’t to suggest one district should follow the other’s lead — it’s to understand that the right answer for each will need to be shaped by its own demographics, finances, and community values. 

Neither problem is easy. And residents of both communities are paying close attention.