Keep Calm But What's Up with The Growth Boundaries?

Today is the Operations committee meeting where they will be discussing proposed boundary changes. The Committee will then take a vote on whether to move them forward to the full Board for approval. Agenda.

Off the bat, this 92-page document is going to take a lot of surveying and analysis.  There are many moving parts here and I'll be interested to see what the district tells communities at the meetings on this issue that start next week.

I also worry that the Board will not fully understand what is being considering, how if affects regions and, as well, the entire district.  There needs to be a micro to macro picture presented.

Also, to note, the Work Session document from yesterday had added pages about options for the tiers for transportation.

The discussion starts on page 40 of the Operations agenda.

Implementation of these amendments will allow for a more efficient use of school building capacity. Staff estimates that these changes would result in fewer portables at the affected schools, and each portable currently costs the District approximately $160,000.

The fiscal impact of these changes from a transportation perspective requires a more granular analysis and is difficult to determine at this time. The amendments could produce savings, increase costs, or be cost neutral depending on whether the number of students who will need transportation increases or decreases as a result of this proposal. After detailed enrollment counts take place at the end of September, staff will produce a more detailed analysis of transportation fiscal impacts prior to the scheduled introduction date of October 12, 2016. 

Continued:

With the approval of the Growth Boundaries Plan for Student Assignment motion from November 20, 2013, progress toward the end-state 2020 boundaries is to be phased in gradually, at the discretion of staff. The new boundaries, as well as location of services and programs, are intended to be implemented in phases in alignment with the BEX IV construction schedule and enrollment changes. Some changes were already implemented; others cannot be implemented for several years because they are dependent on completion of BEX IV projects. 

Also to note:

Additional Meetings:

•   January 12, 2016: JSCEE – Meeting with Sanislo and Denny principals to discuss moving
  Sanislo into the Denny feeder pattern
  
•   February 17, 2016: Sand Point Elementary School – Meeting with Sand Point and
  Laurelhurst principals and Sand Point PTA president to discuss 2017-18 boundary changes
  
•   February 20, 2016: JSCEE – Meeting with Sand Point, Laurelhurst, Thornton Creek, and
  Bryant principals to discuss 2017-18 boundary changes
  
•   May 6, 2016: B. F. Day Elementary School – Meeting with B. F. Day principal, B. F. Day
  PTA president, and vice president to discuss 2017-18 boundary changes 
  

From the ever-smart district facilities and capacity expert, Kellie LaRue:

Please note, there is NO separate document with just the changes. The changes start on PAGE 24 of the attachments to the meeting agenda. The pages are numbered up to page 23 but there are no numbers after that to note all of the other changes.

Also note, that NOT INCLUDED is the list of scheduled boundary changes for 2017. This is ONLY the amended boundary changes.

Now, I have to say that the proposed changes are shockingly sane. A huge complaint about growth boundaries was that they were shifting small areas from one over-crowded school to another over-crowded school. The majority of the “changes” are actually removing the change and leaving things the same. 

But here is the BIG PROBLEM and it is on the LAST PAGE of text right before the maps start. (again there is no page number to reference). 

They are recommending formally that there will be NO GRANDFATHERING at the majority of the changes. This means that they are actively planning to Geo-split elementary students.

They also finally admit that there are some problem with the whole Cedar Park situation that will need some further examination.  

The maps are really quite good and do a great job of highlighting what is going on.  

Another reader points out:
View Ridge and Wedgwood get grandfathering in 2017, but nobody else?  See p 47.

The chart reveals that they are doing it for those schools because of "small numbers of students."  I think it will still be hard on other communities.

Cedar Park

This group, the Cedar Park Racial Equity Analysis Team (CPREAT), was charged with providing recommendations to the School Board that will minimize and mitigate disparate impacts of boundary and assignment changes when Cedar Park Elementary School opens in 2017-18.

Taking steps to assess the demographic balance, program placement, and economic status of students attending Cedar Park, John Rogers, and Olympic Hills is a move towards providing racial and educational equity. Enrollment Planning has utilized the Race and Equity tool and worked with the Equity and Race Relations team and impacted school communities to evaluate alternative scenarios to the Board’s approved plan in order to assess impacts of the proposed changes in regards to economic status, English language learners, special education students, and school demographics.

The recommended mitigations as developed by staff (including the principals of Cedar Park, John Rogers, and Olympic Hills elementary schools, the Executive Director of Schools- Northeast Region, the Director of School-Family Partnerships and Race and Equity, the Director of Enrollment Planning, and the Associate Superintendent for Facilities and Operations) are listed in the full Racial Equity Analysis (attached as Attachment C).