Focus Group Discussions August 07, 2019 listen.DESIGN.deliver 1 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

listen.DESIGN.deliver

August 07, 2019

Focus Group Discussions

Focus Group Discussions August 7, 2019

4 1

INTRODUCTION TO PROCESS

2

INITIAL FINDINGS

3

BIG IDEAS AND EXPLANATION OF CONCEPTS SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Why a Master Facilities Plan?

ü Better prepare St. Joseph students for 21st century success and make St. Joseph a more desirable place to live ü Maximize resources and improve learning outcomes ü We’ve been maintaining for too long; it’s time to innovate for efficiency and success

Mission, Vision & Values…

Mission Educating Each Child for Success Vision A Great Place to Learn Values Commitment to Excellence Integrity of Actions Collaborative Culture

Future Ready Learning Infrastructure Capacity Self-Directed Learning Program Existing Facility Analysis Creativity/Innovation/Collaboration Facilities Student Experience Community Partnerships Operations Alternate Facilities Equitable Early Childhood Wellness Feeder System

Future Ready Learning Infrastructure

Capacity

listen.DESIGN.deliver

What is a Master Facilities Plan?

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

Facility Analysis - 07 August, 2019

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

Facility Analysis - 07 August, 2019

Capacity Projections

18-19 Enrollment 10 year Projection

listen.DESIGN.deliver

Elementary Dashboard

listen.DESIGN.deliver

Elementary Dashboard cont.

listen.DESIGN.deliver

Building Phases

1-20 years: Phase I 5 21-30 years: Phase II 31-40 years: Phase III 1 41-50 years: Phase IV 3 51+ years: Phase V 22

• ORIG. AGE

PHASE NO.

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

IV III I

Facility Analysis - 07 August, 2019

Overall Building Assessment Scores

II

listen.DESIGN.deliver

Survey I “Introduction”

ü More than 750 parents and 600+ staff and teachers ü Nearly 60 percent of respondents believe current facilities will not support future educational needs and more than 65 percent believe facilities are not sufficiently updated or modernized. ü Over 90 percent of respondents agree that learning needs are different today than they were when most facilities were built. 90 percent also understand that technology and innovation will impact future resource and facilities needs. ü Top priorities indicated by respondents include providing equitable high-quality learning environments, as well as collaborative and innovative schools. ü We’ve collected thousands of comments about the greatest strengths, opportunities, and challenges in St. Joseph right now. Many comments provide insight into the pride people feel for their community, and a willingness to explore change to upgrade facilities and meet the evolving needs

• f students.

We received more than 1,500 responses to our first online survey, which helped to provide us with an initial understanding of the state of the district.

listen.DESIGN.deliver

ü More than 500 parents and 200 staff and teachers ü Ensuring that school environments are Forward Looking/Future Ready was a clear top priority for respondents. We received more than 700 responses to our second survey, which helps us to further identify areas of potential priority for the Master Facilities Plan and refine our understanding about the current state of SJSD schools.

Prioritization of District Goals Summary of Survey Results District Goals Ranking (of 6) Forward Looking/Future Readiness

4.40

Community Narrative

3.64

Prioritizing Investment

3.46

Feeder Patterns

3.30

District Standards

3.15

Equitable Programming

3.06 ü Over 75 percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that significant changes are needed to meet FUTURE needs. More than 75 percent also agree that innovative or bold ideas are needed to prepare SJSD students for the future. ü More than 80 percent of respondents believe significant investment in schools is a critical priority. ü Approximately 90 percent of respondents believe investment is needed to ensure St. Joseph is a desirable place to raise a family.

Survey II “Priorities”

listen.DESIGN.deliver Communication and Transparency: There was a consistent call for focusing on

• pen and transparent communication

and fiscal responsibility related to all district work. 21st Century Learning: Ideas frequently cited modernized facilities and access to technology, as well as the development

• f collaborative learning spaces

(including common areas, outdoor learning spaces, and “incubators” for hands-on learning. Middle School Model: Many comments referenced the need for realignment at the middle school level to accommodate a 6-8 grade center model. CTE Opportunities: Many respondents favored increased focus on career and technical education opportunities, including defined career “tracks” in high school, specialized curricula focused on life, technology, and trade skills, and increased community partnerships.

Survey II “Priorities”

Open-Ended Response Themes

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

Prioritize Investment Data Driven Metrics (Educational vs. Sentimental Value) Maximize Use of Money Community Narrative Create Trust Revitalize Perception of Schools Unify Narrative Forward Looking / Future Ready Student Centered Project Based Initiative Research Based

1 2 3

Program Equity SPED in Home School Goal Central ELL Opportunities Early Education Access to Other Programs District Standards Instructional Delivery / Learning Framework District Wide Building Standards Consolidation of Information Feeder Pattern Appropriate Grade Level Configuration Appropriate School Size / Class Size

4 5 6

Prioritization of District Goals

Summary of Visioning Sessions (In Order of Ranking) Facility Analysis - 07 August, 2019

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

Capacity Building Condition

Lenses for Concept Development

Current Facility Analysis - 07 August, 2019

Geography / Urban Sites Student Density Mapping Available Sites Operational Cost Construction Costs Phasing Curriculum Delivery Site Access + Circulation Community Sentiment Socio-Economic Factors Site Amenities Adult Education Programs

Future

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

Saint Joseph - Enhanced Enterprise Zone

Facility Analysis - 07 August, 2019

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

21 Jun 2019

building bldg. maximum

• ptimum

current 5 year 10 year score rank capacity capacity enrollment projected projected HIGH SCHOOLS 4,547 3,996 3,158 3,248 2,915 2.21 3 Benton ˅ 9 / 12 n 999 884 728 776 617 2.45 1 Central ˅ 9 / 12 n 1,937 1,732 1,655 1,716 1,614 2.23 2 Lafayette ˅ 9 / 12 n 1,611 1,380 775 756 684 2.97 Hillyard Tech. 3,548 3,112 ADD 6th gr. fr. Elem. 2,594 2,426 2,318 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 2,121 1,940 1,981 1,847 1,739 2.30 4 Bode ˅ 7 / 8 n 510 460 501 503 484 Bode Addition 220 200 2.62 1 Robidoux ˅ 6 / 7 n 540 500 449 411 424 2.42 2 Spring Garden ˅ 6 / 8 y 556 496 525 453 387 2.36 3 Truman ˅ 7 / 8 n 515 484 506 480 444 Truman Addition 220 200 from Elem. 6th gr. 613 579 579 2,561 2,340 SUB 6th gr. fr. Ele 4,763 4,781 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 7,089 6,068 5,746 5,342 5,360 2.40 9 Bessie Ellison ˄ K / 6 2 y 378 328 335 352 353 3.54 2 Carden Park ˄ K / 6 4 n 699 608 586 616 621 2.59 5 Coleman ˄ K / 6 3 y 537 444 392 415 427 2.40 9 Edison ˅ K / 6 4 n 458 400 393 362 370 2.61 3 Eugene Field ˅ K / 6 2 n 428 376 324 266 251 2.34 13 Hosea ˅ K / 5 4 y 516 472 519 405 410 2.36 12 Hyde ˅ K / 5 3 n 477 420 395 336 340 2.55 6 Lindbergh ˄ K / 5 4 n 553 492 530 539 545 2.37 11 Mark Twain ˅ 1 / 6 2 y 453 324 341 306 292 3.65 1 Oak Grove ˅ pK / 6 4 n 790 732 516 485 489 2.61 3 Parkway ˄ K / 6 3 n 507 444 399 415 421 2.33 14 Pershing ˅ K / 6 2 y 378 280 304 254 251 2.42 8 Pickett ˅ K / 6 2 y 378 280 301 233 224 2.53 7 Skaith ˅ K / 6 3 n 537 468 411 358 366 5,452 4,808 trailers sections school

+ +

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Pickett

Concept 1: Geography + Capacity 6 – 8 Middle Schools

+ +

Hillyard Technical

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

21 Jun 2019

building bldg. maximum

• ptimum

current 5 year 10 year score rank capacity capacity enrollment projected projected HIGH SCHOOLS 4,547 3,996 3,158 3,248 2,915 2.21 3 Benton ˅ 9 / 12 n 999 884 728 776 617 2.45 1 Central ˅ 9 / 12 n 1,937 1,732 1,655 1,716 1,614 2.23 2 Lafayette ˅ 9 / 12 n 1,611 1,380 775 756 684 2.97 Hillyard Tech. 3,548 3,112 ADD 6th gr. fr. Elem. 2,594 2,426 2,318 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 2,121 1,940 1,981 1,847 1,739 2.30 4 Bode ˅ 7 / 8 n 510 460 501 503 484 2.62 1 Robidoux ˅ 6 / 7 n 540 500 449 411 424 2.42 2 Spring Garden ˅ 6 / 8 y 556 496 525 453 387 2.36 3 Truman ˅ 7 / 8 n 515 484 506 480 444 Benton Middle 999 884 from Elem. 6th gr. 613 579 579 2,610 2,364 SUB 6th gr. fr. Ele 5,133 4,763 4,781 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 7,089 6,068 5,746 5,342 5,360 2.40 9 Bessie Ellison ˄ K / 6 2 y 378 328 335 352 353 3.54 2 Carden Park ˄ K / 6 4 n 699 608 586 616 621 2.59 5 Coleman ˄ K / 6 3 y 537 444 392 415 427 2.40 9 Edison ˅ K / 6 4 n 458 400 393 362 370 2.61 3 Eugene Field ˅ K / 6 2 n 428 376 324 266 251 2.34 13 Hosea ˅ K / 5 4 y 516 472 519 405 410 2.36 12 Hyde ˅ K / 5 3 n 477 420 395 336 340 2.55 6 Lindbergh ˄ K / 5 4 n 553 492 530 539 545 2.37 11 Mark Twain ˅ 1 / 6 2 y 453 324 341 306 292 3.65 1 Oak Grove ˅ pK / 6 4 n 790 732 516 485 489 2.61 3 Parkway ˄ K / 6 3 n 507 444 399 415 421 2.33 14 Pershing ˅ K / 6 2 y 378 280 304 254 251 2.42 8 Pickett ˅ K / 6 2 y 378 280 301 233 224 2.53 7 Skaith ˅ K / 6 3 n 537 468 411 358 366 5,452 4,808 sections trailers school

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Pickett Benton Middle

Concept 1a: Geography + Capacity w/ No New Construction Benton HS becomes Middle School

Facility Analysis - 07 August, 2019

Hillyard Technical

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

21 Jun 2019

building bldg. maximum

• ptimum

current 5 year 10 year score rank capacity capacity enrollment projected projected HIGH SCHOOLS 4,547 3,996 3,158 3,248 2,915 2.21 3 Benton ˅ 9 / 12 n 999 884 728 776 617 2.45 1 Central ˅ 9 / 12 n 1,937 1,732 1,655 1,716 1,614 2.23 2 Lafayette ˅ 9 / 12 n 1,611 1,380 775 756 684 2.97 Hillyard Tech. 3,548 3,112 ADD 6th gr. fr. Elem. 2,594 2,426 2,318 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 2,121 1,940 1,981 1,847 1,739 2.30 4 Bode ˅ 7 / 8 n 510 460 501 503 484 Bode Addition 220 200 2.62 1 Robidoux ˅ 6 / 7 n 540 500 449 411 424 2.42 2 Spring Garden ˅ 6 / 8 y 556 496 525 453 387 2.36 3 Truman ˅ 7 / 8 n 515 484 506 480 444 Truman Addition 220 200 from Elem. 6th gr. 613 579 579 2,561 2,340 SUB 6th gr. fr. Ele 4,763 4,781 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 7,089 6,068 5,746 5,342 5,360 2.40 9 Bessie Ellison ˄ K / 6 2 y 378 328 335 352 353 Ellison Addition 150 122 3.54 2 Carden Park ˄ K / 6 4 n 699 608 586 616 621 2.59 5 Coleman ˄ K / 6 3 y 537 444 392 415 427 2.40 9 Edison ˅ K / 6 4 n 458 400 393 362 370 2.61 3 Eugene Field ˅ K / 6 2 n 428 376 324 266 251 2.34 13 Hosea ˅ K / 5 4 y 516 472 519 405 410 2.36 12 Hyde ˅ K / 5 3 n 477 420 395 336 340 NEW Hyde/Hosea 550 450 2.55 6 Lindbergh ˄ K / 5 4 n 553 492 530 539 545 2.37 11 Mark Twain ˅ 1 / 6 2 y 453 324 341 306 292 3.65 1 Oak Grove ˅ pK / 6 4 n 790 732 516 485 489 2.61 3 Parkway ˄ K / 6 3 n 507 444 399 415 421 2.33 14 Pershing ˅ K / 6 2 y 378 280 304 254 251 NEW Pershing 550 450 2.42 8 Pickett ˅ K / 6 2 y 378 280 301 233 224 2.53 7 Skaith ˅ K / 6 3 n 537 468 411 358 366 5,679 4,914 sections trailers school

+ + + +

NEW Pershing NEW Hyde/Hosea

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Pickett

Concept 2: Building Triage

Facility Analysis - 07 August, 2019

+ + + + +

Hillyard Technical

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

21 Jun 2019

building bldg. maximum

• ptimum

current 5 year 10 year score rank capacity capacity enrollment projected projected HIGH SCHOOLS 4,547 3,996 3,158 3,248 2,915 2.21 3 Benton ˅ 9 / 12 n 999 884 728 776 617 2.45 1 Central ˅ 9 / 12 n 1,937 1,732 1,655 1,716 1,614 2.23 2 Lafayette ˅ 9 / 12 n 1,611 1,380 775 756 684 2.97 Hillyard Tech. NEW St. Joseph HS 3,400 3,000 3,400 3,000 ADD 6th gr. fr. Elem. 2,594 2,426 2,318 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 2,121 1,940 1,981 1,847 1,739 2.30 4 Bode ˅ 7 / 8 n 510 460 501 503 484 2.62 1 Robidoux ˅ 6 / 7 n 540 500 449 411 424 2.42 2 Spring Garden ˅ 6 / 8 y 556 496 525 453 387 2.36 3 Truman ˅ 7 / 8 n 515 484 506 480 444 from Elem. 6th gr. 613 579 579 Lafayette MS 1,611 1,380 Central MS 1,937 1,732 3,548 3,112 SUB 6th gr. fr. Ele 4,763 4,781 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 7,089 6,068 5,746 5,342 5,360 2.40 9 Bessie Ellison ˄ K / 6 2 y 378 328 335 352 353 3.54 2 Carden Park ˄ K / 6 4 n 699 608 586 616 621 2.59 5 Coleman ˄ K / 6 3 y 537 444 392 415 427 2.40 9 Edison ˅ K / 6 4 n 458 400 393 362 370 2.61 3 Eugene Field ˅ K / 6 2 n 428 376 324 266 251 2.34 13 Hosea ˅ K / 5 4 y 516 472 519 405 410 2.36 12 Hyde ˅ K / 5 3 n 477 420 395 336 340 2.42 Spring Garden 556 496 2.55 6 Lindbergh ˄ K / 5 4 n 553 492 530 539 545 2.37 11 Mark Twain ˅ 1 / 6 2 y 453 324 341 306 292 3.65 1 Oak Grove ˅ pK / 6 4 n 790 732 516 485 489 2.61 3 Parkway ˄ K / 6 3 n 507 444 399 415 421 2.33 14 Pershing ˅ K / 6 2 y 378 280 304 254 251 NEW Pershing 550 450 2.42 8 Pickett ˅ K / 6 2 y 378 280 301 233 224 2.53 7 Skaith ˅ K / 6 3 n 537 468 411 358 366 5,535 4,838 sections trailers school

+

NEW Pershing Spring Garden ES Central MS Lafayette MS

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Concept 3: Operational Efficiency

Pickett NEW St Joseph HS

Facility Analysis - 07 August, 2019

+ +

Hillyard Technical

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

21 Jun 2019

building bldg. maximum

• ptimum

current 5 year 10 year score rank capacity capacity enrollment projected projected HIGH SCHOOLS 4,547 3,996 3,158 3,248 2,915 2.21 3 Benton ˅ 9 / 12 n 999 884 728 776 617 2.45 1 Central ˅ 9 / 12 n 1,937 1,732 1,655 1,716 1,614 2.23 2 Lafeyette ˅ 9 / 12 n 1,611 1,380 775 756 684

• St. Joe CCC

250 200 2.97 Hillyard Tech. 3,798 3,312 ADD 6th gr. fr. Elem. 2,594 2,426 2,318 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 2,121 1,940 1,981 1,847 1,739 2.30 4 Bode ˅ 7 / 8 n 510 460 501 503 484 2.62 1 Robidoux ˅ 6 / 7 n 540 500 449 411 424 2.42 2 Spring Garden ˅ 6 / 8 y 556 496 525 453 387 2.36 3 Truman ˅ 7 / 8 n 515 484 506 480 444 Benton Middle 999 884 from Elem. 6th gr. 613 579 579 2,564 2,328 SUB 6th gr. fr. Ele 4,763 4,781 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 7,089 6,068 5,746 5,342 5,360 2.40 9 Bessie Ellison ˄ K / 6 2 y 378 328 335 352 353 Ellison Addition 150 122 3.54 2 Carden Park ˄ K / 6 4 n 699 608 586 616 621 2.59 5 Coleman ˄ K / 6 3 y 537 444 392 415 427 2.40 9 Edison ˅ K / 6 4 n 458 400 393 362 370 2.61 3 Eugene Field ˅ K / 6 2 n 428 376 324 266 251 2.34 13 Hosea ˅ K / 5 4 y 516 472 519 405 410 2.36 12 Hyde ˅ K / 5 3 n 477 420 395 336 340 Spring Garden 556 496 2.55 6 Lindbergh ˄ K / 5 4 n 553 492 530 539 545 2.37 11 Mark Twain ˅ 1 / 6 2 y 453 324 341 306 292 3.65 1 Oak Grove ˅ pK / 6 4 n 790 732 516 485 489 2.61 3 Parkway ˄ K / 6 3 n 507 444 399 415 421 2.33 14 Pershing ˅ K / 6 2 y 378 280 304 254 251 NEW Pershing 550 450 2.42 8 Pickett ˅ K / 6 2 y 378 280 301 233 224 2.53 7 Skaith ˅ K / 6 3 n 537 468 411 358 366 5,685 4,960 sections trailers school

+ +

NEW Pershing St Joe College + Career Center

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Pickett Spring Garden ES Benton MS

Concept 4: College + Career Center and Repurpose Buildings

Facility Analysis - 07 August, 2019

+ + +

Hillyard Technical

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

21 Jun 2019

building bldg. maximum

• ptimum

current 5 year 10 year score rank capacity capacity enrollment projected projected HIGH SCHOOLS 4,547 3,996 3,158 3,248 2,915 2.21 3 Benton ˅ 9 / 12 n 999 884 728 776 617 2.45 1 Central ˅ 9 / 12 n 1,937 1,732 1,655 1,716 1,614 2.23 2 Lafeyette ˅ 9 / 12 n 1,611 1,380 775 756 684

• St. Joe CCC

250 200 2.97 Hillyard Tech. 3,798 3,312 ADD 6th gr. fr. Elem. 2,594 2,426 2,318 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 2,121 1,940 1,981 1,847 1,739 2.30 4 Bode ˅ 7 / 8 n 510 460 501 503 484 2.62 1 Robidoux ˅ 6 / 7 n 540 500 449 411 424 2.42 2 Spring Garden ˅ 6 / 8 y 556 496 525 453 387 2.36 3 Truman ˅ 7 / 8 n 515 484 506 480 444 NEW South Middle 990 880 from Elem. 6th gr. 613 579 579 2,555 2,324 SUB 6th gr. fr. Ele 4,763 4,781 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 7,089 6,068 5,746 5,342 5,360 2.40 9 Bessie Ellison ˄ K / 6 2 y 378 328 335 352 353 Ellison Addition 150 122 3.54 2 Carden Park ˄ K / 6 4 n 699 608 586 616 621 2.59 5 Coleman ˄ K / 6 3 y 537 444 392 415 427 2.40 9 Edison ˅ K / 6 4 n 458 400 393 362 370 2.61 3 Eugene Field ˅ K / 6 2 n 428 376 324 266 251 2.34 13 Hosea ˅ K / 5 4 y 516 472 519 405 410 2.36 12 Hyde ˅ K / 5 3 n 477 420 395 336 340 Spring Garden 556 496 2.55 6 Lindbergh ˄ K / 5 4 n 553 492 530 539 545 2.37 11 Mark Twain ˅ 1 / 6 2 y 453 324 341 306 292 3.65 1 Oak Grove ˅ pK / 6 4 n 790 732 516 485 489 2.61 3 Parkway ˄ K / 6 3 n 507 444 399 415 421 2.33 14 Pershing ˅ K / 6 2 y 378 280 304 254 251 NEW Pershing 550 450 2.42 8 Pickett ˅ K / 6 2 y 378 280 301 233 224 2.53 7 Skaith ˅ K / 6 3 n 537 468 411 358 366 5,685 4,960 sections trailers school

+ +

NEW Pershing St Joe College + Career Center

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Pickett Spring Garden ES NEW South MS

Facility Analysis - 07 August, 2019

+ + + +

Hillyard Technical

Concept 4a: College + Career Center and New South Middle School

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

Outline for Small Group Discussions § Introductions. § Share your name, role(s) in the community § Icebreaker § We will discuss four concepts. Your small group facilitator will provide an overview of each concept. § Discussions will cover the following questions:

• What are your initial impressions of this concept? (Be specific.)
• What are the opportunities you foresee with this concept?
• What are the challenges you foresee with this concept?
• What would be the impact of this concept on St. Joseph’s community narrative?

§ Notetaking.

• Each group will have a notetaker who records key insights on an easel pad.
• We also ask that you help us record notes using the notetaking worksheet we provide.

Remember: There are no “answers” yet. The information and ideas we discuss today will inform further engagement and refinement of ideas that “stick.”

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

Ground Rules for Small Group Discussions § Defer Initial Judgments. If you don’t like a concept, be specific in your feedback: “I don’t like the idea of closing this school because…” § Build on Each Other. Try not to outright disagree. Use “and” instead of “but.” § Raise Ideas and Hypotheticals. Rather than asking for validation that something can “work” from the facilitator, put the idea out there so it can be recorded and explored by the planning team. § Stay Focused on the Concept. There will be more opportunities for deeper discussion on the ideas that float to the top. § Focus on Quantity. Let’s think of as many opportunities, challenges and impacts as we can for each concept. § Avoid Distractions. Try to keep side conversations to a minimum (voice your ideas to the group), and silence your phones. § There Are No Concrete Plans Yet. These are initial concepts for feedback based on the facilities and capacity/enrollment assessments. Nothing is definitely “on” or “off” the table at this point. Today is not about “planning” specific actions.

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

Prioritize Investment Data Driven Metrics (Educational vs. Sentimental Value) Maximize Use of Money Community Narrative Create Trust Revitalize Perception of Schools Unify Narrative Forward Looking / Future Ready Student Centered Project Based Initiative Research Based

1 2 3

Program Equity SPED in Home School Goal Central ELL Opportunities Early Education Access to Other Programs District Standards Instructional Delivery / Learning Framework District Wide Building Standards Consolidation of Information Feeder Pattern Appropriate Grade Level Configuration Appropriate School Size / Class Size

4 5 6

Prioritization of District Goals

Summary of Visioning Sessions (In Order of Ranking) Facility Analysis - 07 August, 2019

listen.DESIGN.deliver

• St. Joseph School District

Imagine St. Joseph 2040 Theme: Invest in People There are several education-related goals in the Imagine 2040 plan, led by the St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce and the United Way of Greater St.

• Joseph. We encourage you to keep in mind the following two goals as you

consider “big ideas” for the future of St. Joseph schools. § The community understands the importance of investing in local education and builds a case to fund the local School District at levels that create innovative learning environments and provide instructional resources that lead to awarding-winning schools. § Our award-winning public and private schools focus on career-based skills, post-secondary preparation and alignment with current and future

• jobs. The program builds on the future approach of incorporating

stackable credentials beginning in high school and through post- secondary education.

listen.DESIGN.deliver

Let’s Get Started!