Southwest Area Boundary Study Process -Committee Meeting 6- December 9, 2015

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Southwest Area Boundary Study Process -Committee Meeting 6- December 9, 2015"

Eustace Warner
8 years ago
Views:

1 Southwest Area Boundary Study Process -Committee Meeting 6- December 9, 2015

2 Welcome 6:00-6:05 Review remaining committee objectives Tonight s Agenda 6:05 6:20 Review new modified options per committee and public input 6:20-6:50 Small group discussion of survey results, modified options, and nomination of options for sticker exercise 6:50-7:10 Discuss results of group work 7:10-7:25 Perform sticker exercise to narrow to three options for final meeting 7:25 7:30 Review next steps and adjourn

options, and nomination of options for sticker exercise 6:50-7:10 Discuss results of group work

3 We are here

4 Requests, Questions & Updates From Meeting #5 and Community information Session Requests for Info and Updates: Schools are included in the Boundary Study Process because they 1) are the site of a construction project that will add capacity to the region (a project school ) or 2) share a boundary with a project school Balancing of enrollment is needed throughout the region All schools have the potential to be impacted and over/under capacity concerns addressed Supports transparency and provides opportunity for all potentially affected school to have input into the process Not all school s boundaries may change, but all may contribute to the process

Balancing of enrollment is needed throughout the region All schools have the potential to be impacted and over/under capacity concerns addressed Supports

5 Requests, Questions & Updates Data corrections and updates since Meeting #5: Data table showing Free/Reduced Lunch percent presented at Public Information Session contained an error -- the current year data was incorrect. All other data for Free/Reduced Lunch percent for each of the options in the table were correct. o Error appeared in the data table at Public Information Session and in data table presented with online survey (data at meeting #5 was correct)

All other data for Free/Reduced Lunch percent for each of the options in the table were correct.

6 Requests, Questions & Updates Data corrections and updates since Meeting #5: Labels for Planning Block 466 (Arkla Court) do not show on printed maps but are visible on the online interactive map. o All student enrollment and demographic data for PB 466 is accurate and has been included in all data tables and in all scenarios

7 Public Info Session & Survey Summary About 200 attendees at the info session 1,195 total responses to survey 18 respondents in Spanish, one in Burmese Survey Language Responses Percentage of Total Responses English 1, % Spanish % Burmese 1.1% Total 1, % Live-In Elementary Zone Responses Percentage of Total Responses Arbutus ES 5.4% Catonsville ES % Edmondson Heights ES 1.1% Halethorpe ES 2.2% Hillcrest ES % Johnnycake ES % Lansdowne ES 1.1% Relay ES % Westchester ES % Westowne ES % Woodbridge ES 7.6% Other (Please specify): 11.9% Total 1, % All schools had at least one respondent Over half of the schools (6) had 45 or more respondents Three schools had 120 or more respondents

4% Edmondson Heights ES 1.1% Halethorpe ES 2.2% Hillcrest ES 529 44.3% Johnnycake ES 307 25.7% Lansdowne ES 1.1% Relay ES 45 3.8% Westchester ES 99 8.3% Westowne ES 123 10.

8 Public Info Session & Survey Summary Total respondents: No one option of the four presented received greater than 37% somewhat or strongly favor Option 3 was the most in favor at 36.9% and the least opposed at 51.8% Option 2 was the least in favor at 16.4% and the most opposed at 69.5% Overall Opinion Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 n % n % n % n % Strongly in favor % % % % Somewhat in favor % % % % Neutral % % % % Somewhat opposed % % % % Strongly opposed % % % % Total 1, % 1, % 1, % 1, % The dominant primary concern for all options was Divides existing neighborhoods Primary Concern Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 n % n % n % n % Does not address long term enrollment needs % % % % Is disruptive to school feeder patterns % % % % Does not address current overcrowding % % % % Is disruptive to current walkers, changes bus ridership for students % % % % Divides existing neighborhoods % % % % Does not support maintaining or increasing diversity % % % % Total % % % %

6% 102 9.7% 289 28.1% 132 13.0% Somewhat in favor 130 11.0% 71 6.7% 90 8.8% 126 12.4% Neutral 162 13.7% 149 14.1% 116 11.3% 160 15.8% Somewhat opposed 136 11.5% 86 8.1% 85 8.3% 105 10.

9 New Variations of Options Four additional variations for consideration Uses Option 3 as starting point Attempts to consider input and tweak likely strengths of each option May not resolve all concerns Offers scenarios that align with considerations the community and committee indicate are important and align with principles of the overall process, including: Avoid moving students if the result does not support, to the best extent, boundary study objectives / key principles Maintain or improve student diversity when compared to the diversity of the region as a whole (average among schools in the region) Follow middle school boundaries to best extent Consider to best extent barriers to neighborhood and school contiguousness (e.g. college campuses, cemeteries, large parkland areas) Consider walkability Consider future growth at each school

result does not support, to the best extent, boundary study objectives / key principles Maintain or improve student diversity when compared to the diversity of the region as a whole (average among

10 Original Option 3

11 New Option 3.1

12 New Option 3.1a

13 New Option 3.2

14 New Option 3.2a

15 Small Group Discussion Committee Review & Discussion of all Options Data for new Options 3.1, 3.1a, 3.2, 3.2a have been provided in meeting materials Options 1-4 have not been eliminated may still be considered Material provided in previous meeting (future development, enrollment projections, etc.) may be supportive. Laptops have been provided to review survey comments & online interactive map

2a have been provided in meeting materials Options 1-4 have not been eliminated may still be

16 Small Group Discussion Small group exercise and option nomination Group according to number on name tag Principals will act as facilitators and recorders Review materials, discuss options, and rank order options from most favorable to least favorable Nominate top options to offer to committee for consideration Select as many options as desired to nominate, including variations created by the group List pros and cons of each nominated option

from most favorable to least favorable Nominate top options to offer to committee for consideration Select as

17 Group Reporting & Sticker Exercise Nominated options are posted Groups will report on nominated options, pros/cons Members will be given three stickers each Place only one sticker per map After stickers are placed, group will discuss results and determine: Any options that should be removed from consideration Possible changes to options to improve effectiveness Principals may not participate in the sticker selection exercise but may engage in the discussion

discuss results and determine: Any options that should be removed from consideration Possible changes to options to

18 Sticker exercise Discussion of sticker exercise results

19 Confirmation of next steps

20 General Announcements & Upcoming Schedule December 2015: Upcoming Events Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat December Committee Meeting 6 6:00 7:30 pm Committee Meeting 7 6:00 7:30 pm January 1 2

Committee Meeting 6 6:00 7:30 pm 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Committee

21 See you next week, December 16, 2015! Catonsville HS Cafeteria

Southwest Area Boundary Study -Committee Meeting 1-

Southwest Area Boundary Study -Committee Meeting 1- Process & Tools September 16, 2015 1 Welcome 6:00-6:10 Introductions genda t s Ag onight To 6:10 6:30 Overview of Project and Tools Available 6:30 7:00