St. Joseph speakers urge board to reject school-closure plans, press for "Plan E"

Dozens of students, teachers, parents and residents at a St. Joseph School District public forum urged the Board of Education to reject administration proposals that would close or consolidate neighborhood schools and to adopt a community-backed plan called "Plan E." Speakers said closures would disrupt students' academic and extracurricular opportunities, force some families to leave the district and risk future drops in enrollment.

The public comment period featured lengthy statements from high school students and teachers. Lily Bridges, a senior at Lafayette High School, said she chose Lafayette "to be a name, not a number," and told the board the district should "choose a plan that includes everyone." Eliana Rumbla, student body president at Benton High School, told the board, "There does not need to be a decision made today to close an entire school," and urged the board to adopt Plan E because it "is for everyone." Hannah Rush, a parent and Benton graduate, called the situation "a manufactured crisis" and accused the administration of financial mismanagement that is now being shifted onto students.

Why it matters: Speakers warned that school closures would reduce access to band, sports and other activities, increase average class sizes and place additional strain on counselors and special-education supports. Multiple commenters said larger schools would make it harder for students to build relationships with teachers and coaches, and that scholarship and college-recruiting opportunities could be affected for seniors now in the system.

Community and staff concerns focused on three consistent themes: process, finances and equity. Several speakers pressed the board for greater financial transparency and for a pause so the district can account for incoming funds. Jo Pruett, a longtime resident and educator, said the district was slated to receive delayed Title funding totaling about $10,000,000 and urged the board to reassess reserves and administrative spending before closing buildings. A speaker who described work in juvenile detention said the district could save money through procurement and device choices (for example, switching to Chromebooks) rather than shuttering schools.

Teachers and staff described exhaustion and attrition. One teacher who identified herself as a Betsy Ellison Elementary staff member warned the board that "we are running on fumes" and that younger teachers are leaving the district because of instability. Several commenters asked how special-education services and students with higher needs would be served if buildings closed, and requested detailed plans for transportation and counselor staffing.

Speakers representing different parts of the city framed the proposed maps as socioeconomically divisive. Cindy Cook and others argued that past boundary changes have the effect of concentrating resources and that proposed lines would disproportionately affect North Side and lower-income neighborhoods. Multiple speakers cited overcrowded middle schools in some options (one commenter referenced a middle school with more than 800 students) and warned of unequal access to opportunities if boundaries protect wealthier neighborhoods.

Public preference and political pressure: Commenters repeatedly told the board that public forums and prior signups showed a clear majority in favor of Plan E (several speakers cited turnout figures from prior forums). Jason Ingram and others urged board members to follow the expressed will of residents; Kim Dergu warned board members their votes could determine re-election outcomes if the community's preferred plan is not adopted.

Board action: After the public comment period, a board member moved to adjourn. The board called the roll and recorded unanimous assent; the meeting was adjourned. The public record in the transcript includes board roll-call responses: Miss Miller (yes), Latonya Williams (yes), Miss Chesney (yes), Miss Kearns (yes), Miss Lanning (yes), Mister Moore (yes), Mister Richmond (yes). No formal vote on school-closure plans or boundary maps was recorded in the transcript provided.

What remains unclear: Several commenters said the administration provided delayed or incomplete information; speakers asked the board for concrete cost estimates for building repurposing, counselor and transportation needs, and for a precise accounting of anticipated savings versus potential enrollment-driven revenue losses. One speaker estimated prior enrollment losses produced a present-day revenue decline of about $3,500,000; another described $300,000 in device replacement losses and suggested savings of roughly $1,000,000 from different procurement choices. The board did not announce any new decision on closing or consolidating schools during this meeting.

Looking ahead: Community members asked the board to pause any approval and to request detailed, itemized fiscal analyses from administration, to clarify plans for special education and transportation if closures were pursued, and to consider Plan E or other alternatives developed with broad community input. The board's next steps were not in the transcript.