St. Joseph board says bond failure prompts ‘Plan B’ work; administration backs two-high-school option

The St. Joseph School District’s administration told the school board on Tuesday that, following the defeat of the district bond measure, it will pursue a “Plan B” long-range plan and begin regular planning meetings to determine next steps — including right‑sizing to two high schools.

The administration, led in discussion by Doctor McGinnis and referencing work by Doctor Edgar, said it will hold weekly or biweekly long-range plan meetings and seek input from internal and external stakeholders before presenting formal recommendations. “We had an opportunity to meet this morning as a district admin team. I left a 1 pager at your stations that concludes some of the talking points that we had this morning,” Doctor McGinnis said.

Board members pressed for a timeline and clearer milestones. Several members said the community and staff need both listening sessions and concrete signals about timing so families and employees can plan.

“The consensus from our group this morning was that we are a 2 high school community,” Doctor McGinnis said, summarizing the administration’s current view. The administration also noted longer-term enrollment and staffing trends it says affected the bond planning: “We've lost 1,400 students in 10 years,” Doctor McGinnis said, repeating a figure shared with the board.

Board members voiced overlapping concerns about speed and outreach. One member said the district should “catch our breath, let the dust settle,” and hold town halls and focus groups to hear why the bond failed. Another member argued for a faster schedule so staff and families can make decisions: “If we can have a plan in the next 3 to 4 months, I think the sooner people know what's going on, the sooner they can make decisions,” the board member said.

Administrators told the board they intend to include a broader set of district leaders in upcoming planning meetings than had participated earlier in the facilities committee, and to fold community surveys, precinct voting analysis, focus groups and school-based town halls into the process. “We want community input, have staff dialogue, and then provide a recommendation on our stance and what we think we should do going forward,” Doctor McGinnis told the board.

Financial context was also discussed. One board member urged administrators to bring clear operational‑cost numbers to public meetings, explaining that some voters do not distinguish capital bond dollars from general operating funds. “Those are two different pots of money,” the member said, urging the administration to present the projected effects of continued enrollment decline and building operations on the district’s finances.

Several board members recommended engaging students and teachers in the planning process, and suggested that if the district moves to two high schools it consider rebranding and culture-building for a consolidated high-school model — a change that would carry additional transition costs and community implications.

The administration did not present a finalized Plan B at the meeting. Board members agreed the next steps should include establishing the recurring long-range planning meetings, surveying stakeholders and returning to the board with a timeline and formal recommendations.

The board did not vote on a specific plan at the meeting; Doctor Edgar (who led the internal meeting referenced by administration) is expected to lead the recurring long-range planning sessions and return proposals to the full board for action.