The Davenport Community School District board heard a facility master-planning committee recommendation to expand preschool access and create a regional continuum of care for students with special education needs.

Superintendent Schneckloff and Bray Architects’ John Mahan said the district currently serves roughly 500 preschoolers directly, with an estimated 800–900 preschool seats available through centers and partners, and estimated there are about 1,504 four‑year‑olds living in the city. The committee recommended a hybrid model: three regional children’s villages (East, North and West) augmented by selected school‑based preschool rooms to improve geographic access and wraparound care. The panel set a target of capturing roughly 80–90% of the district’s kindergarten‑bound preschool enrollments — a planning target of about 700 children — while preserving partner sites where feasible.

Under the administration’s proposed phased plan, the first step would be relocating the CV Hoover program and the Madison PM program into JB Young (first floor) to consolidate and grow capacity; a later step would add three to six preschool rooms at Harrison to create a northern children’s village and add 3–4 rooms at Eisenhower to improve east‑side access. The West Region would retain Children’s Village West and existing school‑based offerings (Jackson, Buffalo, Hayes). Administration emphasized the plan is phased: initial relocations and modest retrofits would be followed by a pause to validate enrollment response before committing to larger capital work.

Presenters explained the rationale: overall district enrollment has declined (from about 15,900 to about 12,000 over the last 12 years) while the proportion of students requiring special education services has risen (to roughly 15% of enrollment). That trend, they said, makes it more important to plan appropriate physical spaces and staffing rather than continuing the district’s historically reactive placements. The continuum of care proposal recommends regionally distributed supports so elementary, middle and high schools can serve most higher‑incidence needs locally while reserving more intensive, specialized (low‑incidence) programs at district centers such as the Davenport Learning Center’s Thrive and RISE programs.

Board members and parent representatives traded questions about wraparound care, transportation, and staffing. Preschool director Tiffany Stalkup and others noted barriers families face — cost, transportation and awareness — and explained partner sites receive state licensing and that Children’s Village classrooms require dual‑endorsed teachers for some roles. Presenters said typical class sizes are about 20 and that some Children’s Village sites have full waiting lists; administration cited roughly 60–83 children on current preschool waiting lists across the city (transcript phrasing uncertain) and said the district currently partners with Head Start for 92 funded students.

On costs and schedule, administration said early retrofits and programming changes could begin sooner for continuum‑of‑care work, while larger preschool facility changes would require a longer runway. They estimated larger projects (for example, a gym/cafeteria reconfiguration) could be on the order of $2–4 million, but said precise cost estimates will depend on the final scope, site selection, and funding (PPEL, SAVE, bond sales and other sources). The administration proposed targeting implementation steps around the 2027–28 school year for physical changes and flagged a monitoring pause between phases so the district can validate enrollment and operational assumptions.

Next steps: the board was asked to indicate whether it wanted administration to continue with planning for the relocations and studies. Administration requested authority to proceed with the immediate planning steps (site studies, preliminary cost estimates and stakeholder outreach) and to return with detailed budgets and formal motions for capital work after the pause phases. A formal vote on specific capital expenditure or relocations was not taken tonight; board members asked that cost estimates, funding sources and exact implementation triggers be included with any future motions.

The conversation closed with board members thanking parents and staff who served on the FMPC; the board signaled interest in continuing the phased approach but requested more detailed cost and capacity analysis before final approvals.