● Develop a recommended boundary line for the transition to two K-5 elementary schools
● Ensure that the decision is:
○ Data Driven (i.e. enrollment, demographics, projections)
○ Student-centered (equity in special programming)
○ Transparent (community voice and trust)
Meeting Norms
● Listen with respect
○ Give others attention when they share.
● One voice at a time
○ Avoid side conversations or interruptions
● Assume positive intent
○ Trust that everyone is coming from a good place.
● Seek consensus
○ We don’t need to be unanimous to move forward.
● Parking lot for later
○ Items not related to the boundary discussion or need more research we’ll note it and return to it at the next meeting.
Background Data
Future of our Overcrowded Elementaries
● The BOE has decided when that time comes to address overcrowding with a bond, we will add additions to our two existing buildings and not build a 3rd elementary
○ Fiscally responsible (Savings of $20M)
○ Student-centered (equity in special programming)
○ Transparent (community voice and trust)
Parking Lot Questions & Responses from October 6th
● Provided on Friday; hard copies at tables
● SPED Gifted numbers have been removed
District Boundary and Map
Enrollment Projections by Grade
K-12 Student Heat Density Map
Growth Area Map
Goals/Criteria for Evaluation
❏Balance enrollment between two schools (and grade levels)
❏Balance programming & equity across schools (offered at both schools)
❏ Lunch Programs (Free and Reduced)
❏ Special Education Programming
❏ ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages)
❏Allow for growth (new housing & development)
Boundary Option Review -
Boundary Option Review - Option #1
Whole Group Discussion
❏Option 1
❏ What components did you dislike about Option 1?
■ The boundary line is not easily defined or described
■ Inequity of free and reduced lunch
■ All of the multi-family homes are in one boundary area
■ Very disproportionate between the key factors (income, SPED, ESOL)
■ Potential staffing issues due to disparity in services needed
■ The boundary is hard to follow and would get confusing
❏ Are there any positive components to consider?
■ No
Whole Group Discussion
❏Option 2
❏ What components did you like about Option 2?
■ Boundaries are clear and easy to discuss
■ Less splitting up of neighborhoods
■ Special programming is more balanced than Option 1
■ Transportation appears to be easier (both cars and busses)
■ Clusters of housing around both schools, so it allows for walkers and bikers to get to school
❏ Are there any negative components to consider?
■ Feedback from some that this appears to divide “Old Piper” and “New Piper”
■ Some view it as dividing the “haves and have nots,” although not everyone seemed to agree with this
Whole Group Discussion
❏Option 3
❏ What components did you like about Option 3 ?
■ Programming numbers seem balanced
■ Not splitting neighborhoods
■ ESOL was pretty even
■ Green (future development) shows up in both sections of the district
❏ What components did you dislike about Option 3?
■ None mentioned
Whole Group Discussion
❏Option 4
❏ What components did you like about Option 4?
■ Gives Creek a little more padding in case the population in the townhomes grows quickly
❏ What components did you dislike about Option 4?
■ Feels like there is more chance for growth on the Prairie side that could pose balancing issues later
■ Splits up large neighborhood (Whispering Ridge)
■ Disparity in SPED numbers
❏ Are there additional components worth noting or changing?
■ The boundary line is awkward and splits up Whispering Ridge Subdivision; could it be modified from dividing up Whispering Ridge Subdivision to instead go south on 115th and then west on Leavenworth Road?
Selective Abandonment and Consensus (via digital survey)
● Which Option do you feel should be removed from consideration?
● Per committee vote, it was decided that OPTION 1 would be abandoned.
● Vote Count: 27 of 30 total votes to abandon option #1
Selective Abandonment and Consensus (via digital survey)
● Which Option would you stand behind as the recommendation?
● What changes would make you more comfortable with your support?
● Every committee member had up to two votes.
Option 2: 22 out of 43 Votes (No Revisions)
Option 4: 12/43 (With Revisions in Red Dashed Area Below)
Option 3: 9 out of 43 Votes (No Revisions)
Next Steps
● Option 4 Map has been revised.
● Committee will garner feedback from the community on the 3 remaining options.
● Next Meeting is Monday, November 3rd at 6 PM at PPE.
● Committee members will share community feedback at the meeting.
● Consensus voting will be utilized to move from 3 options to 2 options and then vote again to move from 2 options to the final option to then recommend to BOE.
