Saint Joseph board weighs two-high-school options; administration to return with feeder plans and cost comparisons

The Saint Joseph School District board on Wednesday heard extended public comment and an administration presentation on two alternatives for moving from three high schools to two, and directed staff to return with detailed feeder maps, cost comparisons and savings projections.

The discussion followed a presentation by the district and DLR Group, the district’s facilities consultant, which outlined three scenarios that include Central in every option alongside either Lafayette or a Benton/Hyde combination. The consultant flagged capacity limits, parking and Americans with Disabilities Act compliance as key constraints and provided updated cost ranges for each scenario.

Why it matters: Board members said the district’s financial shortfall makes a near‑term solution necessary and urged a plan that shows how building reassignments will translate into ongoing operating savings. Several public commenters said delay would prolong unequal student access among high schools.

DLR’s short‑term recommendation for Lafayette would require cafeteria expansion and added parking to approach the district’s enrollment target of about 1,150 students at a consolidated campus, the presentation said. The Benton/Hyde combination was presented as a feasible approach if paired with a long‑range plan that includes building a new high school in the north and using an existing site as a swing campus. DLR also noted that using a 6‑period teaching model with 28 students per class would push classroom scheduling to capacity; the district’s current model was described as 6 of 7 courses for many high‑school teachers.

Public comments and board questions emphasized feeder patterns and student program equity. Resident speaker Mike Schott urged the board to move planning into the 2025–26 school year so a two‑high‑school transition could be implemented for 2026–27. Board members asked for: (1) feeder maps showing where students at every grade would attend under the Benton/Hyde and Central/Lafayette options; (2) projected one‑time and recurring savings tied to building closures or repurposing; (3) classroom and staffing layouts (sections per course, expected class sizes); and (4) realistic timelines and whether any option could be achieved within two to three years without a bond vote.

Administration response and next steps: Superintendent Doctor McGinnis said district leadership had only just received updated costs and needs time to develop detailed plans; she and DLR agreed to return with fuller feeder‑pattern models and cost comparisons. Several board members suggested a phased approach and recommended the administration present a comparable two‑option packet — Benton/Hyde vs. Central/Lafayette — with high‑level projected savings and staffing implications at the next work session or the October planning cycle.

No formal action was taken to select an option; the board voted to request a more complete analysis and comparison from administration and DLR.

Board members and administrators acknowledged the work will require time and public outreach, and several asked that the administration prioritize clear community communication and realistic phasing so families, staff and voters can evaluate tradeoffs.

For context, the district’s DLR presentation notes capacity assumptions (28 students per class in the consultant’s conservative model and a 6‑of‑7 schedule translating to approximately 1,680 students under perfect section fits); Hyde High School’s cited optimum capacity in the briefing was 420 students. The administration emphasized that Lafayette’s recommended changes were likely a short‑term solution unless further capital investment were approved.

The board directed staff to return with feeder‑pattern options, estimated one‑time and recurring savings, and an implementation timeline comparing the two leading scenarios.