Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Saint Joseph administration outlines two–high‑school model, four middle‑school feeders and timeline
Summary
District leaders presented a long‑range plan that would organize the district into two high schools served by four middle schools, repurpose or close several elementary buildings, and deliver a timeline to the board for next steps and boundary maps.
Saint Joseph Public School District administrators on Monday presented a long‑range facilities plan that would move the district to a two–high‑school model fed by four middle schools and include closure or repurposing of several elementary buildings.
The administration said the two high schools would be Central High School, fed by Truman and Benton, and Lafayette High School, fed by Rubidoux and Bodie. Superintendent Dr. Edgar told the board the administration will present a timeline and boundaries at the board’s June 23 meeting.
"So if you look at the 2 high school model, it does not change, from what we had said in, plan b. You have Central High School, which will be fed by Truman and Benton. And you have Lafayette High School, which will be fed by Rubidoux and Bodie," Dr. Edgar said during the presentation. He later added, "On the 20 third, you will have a timeline that will be specific to exactly what we're talking about today, plus putting a new high school on the ballot sometime in the future." (exact phrasing as in the meeting transcript)
The draft plan identifies Hyde and Pickett elementaries as closures under the current model and Pershing as a candidate to be repurposed as an early‑learning center. Administrators provided building enrollment snapshots used to model the feeders (examples cited in the presentation include Oak Grove 612, Parkway 473, Spring Garden 552 and Benton 653). Officials said those figures will be refined as boundaries are drawn to keep neighborhoods intact.
Board members and administrators discussed implementation details the district should present to the public and staff before any final decisions: finalized boundary maps, a demographic breakdown by attendance and free‑and‑reduced eligibility for proposed boundaries, transportation routing impacts, building capacity and parking, and the effects of specialty programs (for example, career partnerships or off‑campus programming) on high‑school enrollments.
Several trustees emphasized the need for a clear, public timeline and for staff to present the financial and staffing implications of the shift. Administration said the two‑high‑school configuration is driven principally by staffing and program delivery, and that the proposed model is not intended as the district’s permanent, end‑state facility plan; rather it is a path the district believes is sustainable given current staffing constraints.
Administrators said additional refinement is coming: boundary maps and staffing projections will be provided at the June 23 meeting and a consultant (DLR) will present a timeline for a new‑school ballot and implementation steps.
The presentation drew follow‑up requests from board members for consolidated capacity tables and a demographic analysis tied to the draft boundaries and for a clear communications timeline the district can share with staff and families.
Next steps: DLR and district staff will provide boundary maps, capacity/demographic analysis and a timeline on June 23. No final boundary changes or facility actions were approved at the meeting.
