Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't the timeline, it's the process. Secret meetings for public schools, not listening to the communities they are supposed to serve, not reaching out to many of the communities they are supposed to serve, and so much more.

I believe the entire process is to check a box that they've talked to the community. In reality, they do what they want, and don't listen to anyone's feedback anyway.

I don't know, the list of working assumptions they presented for the upcoming options seemed very much to be in response to the community concerns that I've heard. Let's see what they come up with next.

Next Round of Boundary Study Options

Working Assumptions Aligned to Board Policy FAA Factors and Feedback from Initial Options

● Include Proposed 6 Region Model in option development
● Prioritize proximity of neighborhoods and communities to schools (this the #1 piece of feedback we have received from community engagement)
● Minimize length of school bus rides and maximize safe walk zones whenever possible
● Avoid disproportionate split articulation whenever possible
● Minimize disruptions for communities who have experienced recent boundary changes and those who experience additional school transitions (primary and intermediate schools)
● Maintain the 80 to 100 percent efficient facility utilization range for middle and high schools included in the boundary study scopes
● Consider costs for resources associated with options (staffing, facilities, transportation, etc.) in order to be fiscally responsible

I wonder if this means they will favor options that redraw lines within the same region. For example, BCC boundary lines with Einstein or Whitman could be redrawn, but not with WJ, since WJ is in a different region. Or Einstein with BCC or Northwood, but not with Wheaton. That would probably help with transportation logistics too during the phase-in.

I think it probably just means basing utilization on the proposed new regional program slots rather than the current program slots.