Boundary Adjustment Committee Recommendation
Sherwood School District February 11, 2015
Welcome
Dr. Heather Cordie Superintendent
Introductions
Boundary Adjustment Committee
Margot Helphand, Facilitator
District Staff
Boundary Adjustment Committee October 2014: Superintendent-appointed committee to recommend boundary adjustment 12 members 2 parents from each elementary and middle school Board set criteria for committee to consider
Board Considerations
Enrollment Stability – Balancing enrollment across all schools so that no one school is over- or under-enrolled Sustainability – Boundary can be maintained for several years Neighborhood Intactness – Natural neighborhoods are kept as whole as possible Student Impact – Boundary adjustment minimizes impact on students
Board Considerations
Proximity – Boundary supports students attending schools as close as possible to their homes Transportation – Consideration is given to safety and efficiency in transporting students to school
BAC Work Process October – January 2015: Committee met three times, analyzed community growth patterns, building capacities, Board criteria Committee drafted three elementary and two middle school options for public input Committee held first public Open House, 12/09/14 Committee reviewed feedback and drafted two options Committee held second public Open House, 01/22/15 Committee reviewed feedback and reached consensus on a recommendation
Information Reviewed
Enrollment history and forecasts History of previous boundary changes Population projections from the PSU Study Development trends in the Sherwood School District area; 2-5 years; 5+ years Development outlook for 10 years and 10+ years School capacities Transportation routes
Current Elementary School Boundaries
Current Middle School Boundaries
Elementary Status (Capacity-Enrollment) Archer Glen 500 (w/out) 600 (w/Ports) 474 (K-5) Middleton 600 (w/out) 750 (w/Ports) 491 (K-5)
Edy Ridge 600 (w/out) 685 (K-5)
Hopkins 550 (w/out) 650 (w/Ports) 536 (K-5)
Middle School Status (Capacity-Enrollment) Sherwood Middle School 900 (w/out) 1050 (w/Ports) 695 (6-8) Laurel Ridge Middle School 580 (w/out) 567 (6-8)
Enrollment Capacity
Elementary Schools have capacity for current enrollment Total
Elem Capacity: 2,250 (w/out portables) Current Elem Enrollment: 2,186 (difference 64)
Middle Schools have capacity for current Enrollment Total
Middle Capacity: 1,480 (w/out portables) Current Middle Enrollment: 1,262 (difference 218)
History of Growth – Forecasted Growth (PSU Study)
Development Considerations
Sherwood has a population of 18,575 with approximately 6701 dwelling units 5095
single family 1606 multi-family
Coordination between City, School District, TVF&R, ODOT, WACO, CWS, State, Metro and neighboring jurisdictions critical during review City of Sherwood planning ahead for metered growth
Sherwood Development
26 total 36 total
66 3
8
Approved lots, no building permits
2-5 Year Development Outlook
Possible development within next several years
Key Learnings
Both elementary and middle schools have capacity for current total enrollment; however, the enrollment is uneven between schools, with Edy Ridge over-enrolled at 114% while other elementary schools have capacity for additional students. Over-enrollment affects the overall educational experience for students.
Key Learnings
The PSU study indicates that in the next five years there may be a decline in elementary school enrollment, a flat growth in middle schools and a 16% growth in high school (due to a population bubble). The greatest anticipated development is in the Edy Ridge area, with a potential for up to 80 new residences over the next few years.
RECOMMENDATION
Elementary School Boundary Map
Elementary School Boundary
Middle School Boundary Map
Middle School Boundary
RATIONALE: FIT WITH CRITERIA
Sustainability
85% capacity at Edy Ridge, giving that school an opportunity to function effectively and accommodate anticipated new students while balancing enrollment at the other three elementary schools. Maintains capacity at Archer Glen, which could be the next most likely school to be impacted by future growth.
Minimize Student Impact
This recommendation impacts 8.8% of the total elementary student population and 5.8% middle school students of the total middle school student population One of the lowest numbers of students impacted of any of the options studied Low middle school student impact was of particular interest, as the cells moved from Edy Ridge to Middleton would maintain their current middle school boundary with Laurel Ridge, reducing impact on those neighborhoods
Walk Zones
Walk zones are highly valued This recommendation preserves all current walk zones Including walk zones would require the splitting of neighborhoods in some cases. Although preserving walk zones limits who is available to move from Edy, the BAC decided, in addition to other reasons, that it was best to move students already on bus routes.
Intact Cohort – ES to MS
All of Archer Glen a complete cohort for middle school and continues the use of current Laurel Ridge boundaries for those students required to move to a new elementary school Minimizes transition effects on current and incoming middle school students
Neighborhood Intactness
Rated the highest of all options analyzed for supporting existing neighborhood boundaries Minimizes impact to Hopkins and Title I status
Transportation
Supports criteria to consider transportation efficiencies by adjusting cells with students that are already being bused to school Significantly reduces the potential need to add buses and establish new routes that can be a result of any boundary adjustment Busing students from Cells 3 and 4 to Middleton instead of Hopkins is potentially quicker and more efficient than the circuitous route required to Hopkins due to the buses not being able to make a left turn into the school. (One of the many options considered and eventually rejected after criteria testing, moved cells 3 and 4 to Hopkins.) Every option scrutinized required moving elementary students across 99W With this recommendation, there are the greatest number of traffic pathways to help ease the flow for parents and the community.
Concern
The non-contiguous boundary that is created for Cells 3 and 4 with this recommendation.
The primary discussion was a concern that if an area is isolated, future school boundary adjustments (e.g., if new schools are added) would likely look to those isolated areas first as options for shifting boundaries.
However, factoring all of the sometimes-competing guidelines, and given the density of that neighborhood, the conclusion was reached that moving this group of students across town was the best resolution for the district as a whole.
Next Steps March 11, 2015 – Board decision Spring 2015 - District communicates new boundaries to parents, students, general public September 2015 - New boundaries take effect
