To streamline the feedback from the first round, we developed summary statements that consolidated related projects into clear, concise descriptions. These statements were then aligned with one of Clayton’s three strategic goals (illustrated in the graphics to the right) to highlight how each initiative supported the district’s broader vision. Finally, each project was categorized under a Master Plan Theme, establishing a clear architectural framework for implementation. ORGANIZING OF PROJECTS & INSIGHTS INTO STRATEGIC GOALS & THEMES 7 23

Finally, each project was categorized under a Master Plan Theme, establishing a clear architectural framework for implementation. ORGANIZING OF PROJECTS & INSIGHTS INTO STRATEGIC GOALS & THEMES 7 23 24 The results of each Sub-Committee vote can be found within the Ranking District & Building-Level Priorities tab of the Master Planning Process section beginning on page 33. In October, Building-Level Sub-Committees reconvened to build on the foundational work from the first round of meetings. The primary purpose of this meeting was to capture any additional insights that may have been missed in the first round and to start prioritizing the projects and insights for each facility. To guide these discussions, the Paragon team presented summary statements of the projects, which were sorted by Clayton’s strategic goals and assigned a Master Plan Theme. These summaries served as a structured starting point for meaningful dialogue. Sub-Committee members participated in a dot-voting exercise to identify priority projects. Each member was allowed to cast three votes that they would allocate to the project summaries they believed were most critical. Following the vote, we conducted a roundtable discussion where each member shared their reasoning for their selections. This open exchange not only provided valuable context to the voting results but also helped highlight key advocates for specific projects — for instance, students voicing strong support for athletic field improvements. BUILDING LEVEL SUB-COMMITTEES MEETING #2 8

This open exchange not only provided valuable context to the voting results but also helped highlight key advocates for specific projects — for instance, students voicing strong support for athletic field improvements. BUILDING LEVEL SUB-COMMITTEES MEETING #2 8 The third Steering Committee meeting focused on refining and consolidating the feedback gathered thus far into actionable architectural solutions. Using the results of the dot-voting exercises from the second round of Sub-Committee meetings, the Paragon team combined smaller architectural challenges into larger architectural projects that could be implemented effectively. Dr. Patel also presented “The Future of Education” of which, the details are highlighted in Step 10 — Building-Level Community Forums. During the meeting, voting results, district-wide common themes, and priorities identified by each building-level Sub-Committee were reviewed. This provided an opportunity for the Steering Committee members to ask questions, share feedback on the voting outcomes, and confirm alignment with the district’s goals. The approach for the upcoming Building-Level Community Forums was outlined, with guidance from the Steering Committee on structuring the forums to maximize stakeholder engagement. STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #3 9 25 Throughout the month of November, each school hosted its own Building-Level Community Forum to engage a broader audience and gather input directly from members of the community. These forums were designed to provide context for the Master Planning process, inspire meaningful discussions, and ensure alignment with the district’s goals and vision. The forums began with Dr. Patel presenting “The Future of Education” to help attendees understand the evolving needs of modern learning environments. This information was presented to encourage participants to think about the future of education in Clayton, MO, emphasizing the need to prepare students for a world that “demands big thinkers who care deeply.” The Profile of a Clayton Graduate was also introduced to help the broader audience understand that the goals of the district are not just intellectual, but are also focused on the emotional and physical well-being of students. BUILDING-LEVEL COMMUNITY FORUMS 10

This information was presented to encourage participants to think about the future of education in Clayton, MO, emphasizing the need to prepare students for a world that “demands big thinkers who care deeply.” The Profile of a Clayton Graduate was also introduced to help the broader audience understand that the goals of the district are not just intellectual, but are also focused on the emotional and physical well-being of students. BUILDING-LEVEL COMMUNITY FORUMS 10 The forums also included a review of the Long-Range Facility Master Plan Process which summarized the assessments that were conducted, the district’s engagement opportunities, and the high priorities identified from each respective Building-Level Sub-Committee meeting. The final segment of each forum focused on Community Discussion and Feedback using a “Glows and Grows” activity. This structured exercise invited participants to provide feedback by identifying: Glows: • “What are you proud of in your School?” • “What parts of your School are elevating our Learners?” Grows • “What would you like to improve for your school’s learners?” • “What parts of your school are hindering our Learners?” After each table finished discussing, we had each group nominate a speaker that reported ONE of their top take-aways, repeating the process until all groups have said all take-aways. In general, the feedback that was obtained from the Building-Level Community Forums was consistent with the feedback given in the Sub-Committee meetings. This engagement process helped reaffirm that the community was in alignment with the direction that the Long Range Facilities Master Plan was heading. 26

In general, the feedback that was obtained from the Building-Level Community Forums was consistent with the feedback given in the Sub-Committee meetings. This engagement process helped reaffirm that the community was in alignment with the direction that the Long Range Facilities Master Plan was heading. 26 27 FUTURE DESIGN OPTIONS MEETINGS 11 Following the Building-Level Community Forums, design meetings were held for each facility. These meetings included the Paragon team, the facility’s principal, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Superintendent, with the goal of translating community input and district priorities into actionable long- range facility plans. Each Design Options Meeting was informed by the outcomes of its respective Building-Level Community Forum and Sub-Committee Meeting to ensure the proposed solutions were firmly rooted in student, teacher, principal & community feedback. The Paragon team focused on incorporating High and Medium priority items into the design options and were also able to thoughtfully incorporate Low-priority items where possible. For each facility, 2-3 design long range plans were presented, featuring detailed floor plans and site plans. During these sessions, each decision option was reviewed in depth to allow the district’s team to provide critical feedback on what would work, what wouldn’t, and what elements were most important to the community. The feedback gathered during these meetings was used to revise and refine the design options that represent the long-range multi-phase improvements, not necessarily one single step project. Building on the insights gathered from the Building-Level Community Forums, the first District Community Forum brought stakeholders together to review district-wide findings, discuss key priorities, and gather additional community input. This event was designed to provide a comprehensive overview of the Long-Range Facility Master Plan process while fostering meaningful discussions about the future of the district. The agenda for the forum included a condensed version of the “Future of Education” presentation to allow more time for interactive feedback. Attendees were reintroduced to the context of the Master Plan process, including the assessments conducted, district and community engagement opportunities, and a recap of Sub-Committee meetings. To encourage active participation, the forum featured a gallery walk. Printed boards displayed the Facility Appraisal results (see Facility Appraisals section beginning on page 95 for more information) and high- priority projects identified for each school. Principals stood by the display board for their respective schools to engage directly with attendees, answering questions, and clarifying details. This promoted personalized, school-specific conversations while ensuring all participants could interact with the data. Following the gallery walk, attendees reconvened for a facilitated discussion. This segment focused on sharing main takeaways from the gallery walk and soliciting broader community feedback. This step in the master planning process was critical in ensuring the district’s vision remained aligned with community needs and expectations. DISTRICT-WIDE COMMUNITY FORUM #1 12