Planning for the Future:

Boundary Committee Recommendation

November 28, 2016

Agenda
Part 1: Introductions
Committee Acknowledgement

Part 2: Committee Information

Boundary Process
Boundary Study Scope
Prioritized Boundary Criteria for the Process

Part 3: Boundary Recommendation

Boundary Introduction
Committee Recommendation

Part 4: Next Steps

Next Steps

Committee Members
Mike Barr

Shannon Lueders

Sue Tiedt

Derrick Berlin

Doug Marecek

Richard Todd

Carrie Burk

Jamie Max

Rick Trujillo

Missy Dziewiatkowski

Todd Mayes

Theresa Ulrich

Sean Flynn

Melissa McDowell

Amy Underwood

Airen Freese

Kenneth Muehlfelder

Robyn Vickers

Mary Geraghty

Jennifer Neal

Michael Wareman

Kim Grant

Colleen Nedrow

Mike Wayne

Craig Gunty

Adam Quinn

Katie Zink

Paula Hamilton

Bonnie Ramirez

Board Chair: Lauri Doyle

Kathy Howat

Audra Reavley

Board Chair: Dr. Mike McDowell

Jan Kellogg

Eric Rietow

4 Rick Kuhn

Allison Sulkson

Committee Time Commitment

Five Committee Meetings each lasting on average nearly 2 hours = 10 hours
Two Public Input Discussions each lasting nearly 2.5 hours = 5 hours
Public Input after each committee meeting
Homework after meetings that likely was at least 1 hour = 7 hours

Specific Tasks

Development, Demographic, and Enrollment Trends

Neighborhood Discussion

Update of information (Capacity, EL and SPED Programs, and enrollment trends)

Feeder System Discussion

Scenario 1A/1B

Scenario 2A/2B

Scenario 3A/3B/3C

What have you heard from the community (Meetings, Emails, Conversations, Surveys)

Listen, Listen, and Listen

Consensus on Committee Recommendation

Part 2:
Committee
Information
6

Presentation Goals
1. Provide information that will help the Board of Education understand the Committee
Recommendation for the Elementary, Junior High, and High School Attendance area
realignment

Boundary Process
Boundary Guiding Principles and Boundary Criteria
Explanation of what Happened
Elementary Recommendation to the Board of Education
Secondary Recommendation to the Board of Education

2. Provide a transparent dialogue between RSP, Administration, BOE, and Committee so

the public will better understand the timing for proposed changes and reasons why
adjustments to current boundary lines will need to occur in the future

Conduct / Ground Rules

Ask questions
Engage fully

Integrate new information

Open your mind to diverse views
Utilize what you learn
Other Items Added By Committee:

Just because different- not wrong

Really listen thoughtfully

Respect others views

Factor emotions of those not having opinion of majority

Speak up

Roles
In order to ensure a positive outcome during the process and for the final outcome, the BOE
directed RSP to clearly state the roles of each entity in the Boundary Process Approved by the
BOE on August 1, 2016:
Board of Education: Provide the framework of the process, community values, prioritized boundary criteria,
receive the Committee recommendation, listen to community input, and after more discussion approve
attendance areas for the ES, JH, and HS for the 2017/18 school year.
Administration: Provide guidance over the process, attend the committee meetings and public forums, be a
resource in answering questions related to school district related topics, communicate the educational vision,
and provide ongoing progress updates to the school community through a targeted communication plan.
RSP: Facilitator (Board, Committee, and Public Forums). Utilize GIS data, knowledge gained from city
jurisdictions and others to create accurate enrollment projections and generate scenarios based on the
committee feed back to the Board community values and prioritized boundary criteria.
Committee: Examine scenarios presented and evaluate based on the community values and prioritized
boundary criteria so a recommendation can be provide to the Board of Education. Focus is not on knowing
where students reside, but rather the community values and prioritized boundary criteria
Community: Review the scenarios and provide constructive feedback so the committee and/or Board can
consider how any of these ideas might benefit the boundary plan that will be implemented

Boundary Criteria Guiding Principles

The following are to be considered:
The BOE considers this work as part of the district plan. Its one part of a whole keep committee meetings to 90 minutes in length
The boundary should reflect providing better educational opportunities at each school for there to be an equitable student
experience at each school
The grade configuration should be Kdg to 5th, 6th- 8th, and 9th to 12th

Kdg students should be located to a home attendance area

The committee recognizes the power of an elementary school to create community.

Accessibility for families is essential (volunteering and attending school function are easier when the school is near)

The boundary can anticipate future growth of the neighborhood

Walkability may not be possible currently some schools may start with small enrollment in anticipation of growth.

The boundary proposed should utilize all of the available district resources do not increase capital costs to increase capacity
Consider boundary lines that follow natural/manmade boundaries do not split neighborhoods prefer no attendance area islands
Grandfathering/Transfers/Student Options are determined by Administration
Special Education should be located in the same school each school year
Maintain the current class size standards for schools

10

BOE Guidance 08/01/16

Board Criteria Ranking

Below are the top four the BOE prioritized on August 1, 2016:
1.

Projected Enrollment and Building Utilization (Balance enrollment with given

building capacity constraints)

2.

Fiscal Consideration Operational (Minimize staff increases)

3.

Duration of Boundaries (Have them last as long as possible)

4.

Transportation (Minimize travel time create safe environment for students)

Note: All 10 criteria are important to making a good decision the Board of
Education identified these four to be the basis of how to begin the evaluation in the
creation of attendance areas

11

Process in Detail:

12

3 Board of Education Meetings

5 Committee Meetings

2 Public Forums

Process starts August 2016

Process completed December 2016

Committee Organic Thinking

Below is the general details of what took place for the Committee Recommended Plan to
be presented tonight:
Committee Meeting #1 Provide information about the process, Boundary Criteria,
Guiding Principles, and general information about the district
Committee Meeting #2 Activities to figure out committee ideas of what makes a
neighborhood so a scenario could be developed that integrated those ideas into a plan
Committee Meeting #3 Integrate neighborhood committee feedback with the
baseline of the BOE Prioritized Boundary Criteria and the Guiding Principles and
generate a possible scenario (1A and 1B)

Committee Meeting #4 Take committee feedback on Scenario 1A and 1B, along with
the BOE Prioritized Boundary Criteria and the Guiding Principles to refine the scenario
which resulted in Scenario 2A and 2B
Public Input Discussions Take the committee body of work to the public for the
community to provide their ideas on how to make the best boundaries
Committee Meeting #5 Integrate community feedback and the committee Meeting
#4 thoughts, as well as the BOE Prioritized Boundary Criteria and Guiding Principles to
ultimately provide the BOE a comprehensive boundary plan for 2017/18

13

14

Attendance Areas
(Elementary)

15

District Boundary (purple line)

Elementary Attendance Areas
Major Streets
Major water features
School Locations

Boulder Hill and Southbury has a broken ES to JH Feeder

16

Attendance Areas
(Junior High)

17

District Boundary (purple line)

Junior High Attendance Areas
Major Streets
Major water features
School Locations

Attendance Areas
(High School)

18

District Boundary (purple line)

Junior High Attendance Areas
Major Streets
Major water features
School Locations

Based on Core Functional Capacity

School

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
2. Boulder Hill Elementary
695
475
3. Churchill Elementary
590
550
5. Fox Chase Elementary
774
750
6. Grande Park Elementary
700
700
7. Homestead Elementary
702
650
8. Hunt Club Elementary
785
475
9. Lakewood Creek Elementary
925
925
10. Long Beach Elementary
652
644
11. Old Post Elementary
490
350
12. Prairie Point Elementary
632
600
13. Southbury Elementary
798
750
14. The Wheatlands Elementary
649
625
15. Wolf's Crossing Elementary
599
575
Total
8,991
8,069

School Year
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
589
594
596
599
624
600
590
591
533
509
519
519
735
742
754
774
589
569
555
551
277
285
303
319
762
752
726
722
510
504
493
476
336
336
334
322
473
440
408
396
467
472
483
489
589
566
544
539
519
493
458
439
7,002
6,861
6,764
6,736

Capacity %
FRL
2021/22 2021/22 2021/22
609
128.3%
42.7%
587
106.7%
12.1%
526
70.2%
26.4%
817
116.7%
8.8%
543
83.6%
14.0%
337
70.9%
13.4%
713
77.0%
22.7%
484
75.1%
43.0%
323
92.3%
14.7%
394
65.6%
7.6%
505
67.4%
26.9%
526
84.1%
15.7%
435
75.7%
14.4%
6,799

The following Schools would

have capacity issues:
Boulder Hill
Churchill
Grande Park

Note 1: Above table has all the EL,DL,SEI, and SPED removed from projections

Based on Total Core Functional Capacity

School

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
2. Boulder Hill Elementary
695
475
3. Churchill Elementary
590
550
5. Fox Chase Elementary
774
750
6. Grande Park Elementary
700
700
7. Homestead Elementary
702
650
8. Hunt Club Elementary
785
475
9. Lakewood Creek Elementary
925
925
10. Long Beach Elementary
652
644
11. Old Post Elementary
490
350
12. Prairie Point Elementary
632
600
13. Southbury Elementary
798
750
14. The Wheatlands Elementary
649
625
15. Wolf's Crossing Elementary
599
575
Total
8,991
8,069

19

School Year
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
725
730
732
735
648
624
614
615
561
537
547
547
735
742
754
774
633
613
599
595
528
536
554
570
762
752
726
722
520
514
503
486
392
392
390
378
493
460
428
416
500
505
516
522
601
578
556
551
536
510
475
456
7,633
7,492
7,395
7,367

2021/22
745
611
554
817
587
588
713
494
379
414
538
538
452
7,430

Capacity %
FRL
2021/22 2021/22
107.3%
42.1%
103.6%
12.5%
71.6%
27.2%
116.7%
8.8%
83.6%
16.8%
74.9%
22.7%
77.0%
22.7%
75.7%
42.9%
77.3%
16.9%
65.5%
8.6%
67.5%
26.2%
82.8%
16.3%
75.5%
15.0%

Note 1: Above table includes having the EL,DL,SEI, and SPED included in the numbers based on their serving school in 2017/18

Orange shaded areas depict

where the enrollment
exceeds either the Total or
Core Functional Capacity of
the building

Based on Core Functional Capacity

School
16. Bednarcik Junior High
17. Murphy Junior High
18. Plank Junior High
19. Thompson Junior High
20. Traughber Junior High
Total

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
1,080
1,064
1,188
1,110
1,163
1,050
1,240
1,200
1,224
1,200
5,895
5,624

2017/18
702
715
758
910
1,111
4,197

School Year
2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
695
684
644
717
733
731
743
732
714
899
891
891
1,086
1,039
1,020
4,140
4,079
4,000

Capacity %
FRL
2021/22 2021/22 2021/22
619
58.1%
14.6%
705
63.6%
12.6%
694
66.0%
35.4%
866
72.2%
26.8%
997
83.1%
16.7%
3,880

Note 1: Above table has all the EL (DL and SEI) and SPED removed from projections

Based on Total Core Functional Capacity

School
16. Bednarcik Junior High
17. Murphy Junior High
18. Plank Junior High
19. Thompson Junior High
20. Traughber Junior High
Total

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
1,080
1,064
1,188
1,110
1,163
1,050
1,240
1,200
1,224
1,200
5,895
5,624

2017/18
715
724
859
939
1,125
4,363

2018/19
708
726
844
928
1,100
4,306

School Year
2019/20 2020/21
697
657
742
740
833
815
920
920
1,053
1,034
4,245
4,166

2021/22
632
714
795
895
1,011
4,046

Capacity %
FRL
2021/22 2021/22
59.4%
15.2%
64.4%
12.7%
75.7%
36.5%
74.6%
26.7%
84.2%
17.0%

Note 1: Above table includes having the EL (DL and SEI) and SPED included in the numbers based on where their serving school in 2017/18

Based on Total Core Functional Capacity

School
21. Oswego East High
22. Oswego High
Total

20

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
3,200
3,200
3,200
3,200
6,400
6,400

2017/18
2,723
2,727
5,449

School Year
Capacity %
FRL
2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22
2,842
2,881
2,944
2,957
92.4%
20.0%
2,748
2,792
2,812
2,815
88.0%
20.4%
5,590
5,673
5,756
5,771

Orange shaded areas depict

where the enrollment
exceeds either the Total or
Core Functional Capacity of
the building

21

Scenario Reasoning:
1. Create a scenario that addresses as many of the items the committee members
drew on the neighborhood map activity and update Option 1 with EL and SPED
program location to adjust for Core and Total Functional Capacity with the new
student data from the district
2. Have attendance areas that visually make sense in relation to proximity to schools,
neighborhoods and roads
3. Continue the conversation of how to refine the scenario

22

Scenario Reasoning:
1. Refine the scenario to address as many of the items the committee members
drew on the neighborhood map activity and enhance Option 1A & 1B with their
comments along with the EL and SPED programs location to adjust for Core and
Total Functional Capacity with the new student data from the district

Not all of the committee changes worked based on a multitude of factors

2. Work toward having as many students close to schools attend that closest school
3. Have attendance areas that visually make sense in relation to proximity to schools,
neighborhoods and roads
4. Continue the conversation of how to refine the scenario to be ready for the two
public input sessions

23

Scenario Reasoning:
1. Refine the scenario to address as many of the items the committee members
drew on the Option 2A/2B with their comments, as well as follow their
neighborhood map ideas, along with the EL and SPED programs location to adjust
for Core and Total Functional Capacity with the new student data from the district

Not all of the committee changes worked based on a multitude of factors

2. Integrate the Community Input ideas into the scenario

3. Work toward having as many students close to schools attend that closest school
4. Have attendance areas that visually make sense in relation to proximity to schools,
neighborhoods and roads
5. Continue the conversation of how to refine the scenario toward a
Recommendation to the Board of Education

24

Area
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

Area Name
Orchard Praire North
& Saratoga Springs
Pasquinellis
Blackberry Knoll
Estates of
Fox Chase
Gates Creek
Clarks Sub &
The Highlands
The Original
town of Oswego
Churchill Club

ES

Current Reside
JH

HS

ES

Choice 1
JH

HS

ES

Choice 2
JH

HS

Boulder Hill

Thompson

Oswego HS

Lakewood Creek

Thompson

Oswego

Fox Chase

Traughber

Oswego

Boulder Hill

Thompson

Oswego

Lakewood Creek

Thompson

Oswego

Fox Chase

Traughber

Oswego

Fox Chase

Thompson

Oswego

Fox Chase

Thompson

Oswego

Hunt Club

Thompson

Oswego

Fox Chase

Thompson

Oswego

Fox Chase

Thompson

Oswego

Hunt Club

Thompson

Oswego

Fox Chase

Thompson

Oswego

Fox Chase

Thompson

Oswego

Hunt Club

Thompson

Oswego

Southbury

Thompson

Oswego

Southbury

Thompson

Oswego

Prairie Point

Thompson

Oswego

Old Post

Thompson

Oswego

Old Post

Thompson

Oswego

Southbury

Thompson

Oswego

Plank

Oswego East

Long Beach

Plank

Oswego East

Old Post

Thompson

Oswego

Plank

Oswego East

Churchill

Plank

Oswego East

Long Beach

Plank

Oswego East

Plank

Oswego East

Churchill

Plank

Oswego East Wolf's Crossing

Bednarcik

Oswego East

Bednarcik

Oswego East The Wheatlands

Bednarcik

Oswego East

Murphy

Oswego East Wolf's Crossing

Bednarcik

Oswego East

Heritage of Oswego
Long Beach
& Mason Square Phase 2
Ogden Falls
Churchill
Phase 3, 4
Ogden Falls
Churchill
Phase 1
Lincoln Station
Wolf's Crossing

Prescott Mill

I
J

Grande Park

Bednarcik
Murphy

Oswego East Wolf's Crossing

Oswego East

Southbury

ES

Choice 3
JH

Hunt Club

Thompson

Long Beach

Bednarcik

Note: Table shows current boundary boundary and changes discussed at the committee - during the public session process - other options could be discussed that may impact the final recommendation

The areas mentioned above were areas the committee felt more input was needed from the community.
All of the community input and how those comments relate to the Board of Education Guiding Principles
and Prioritized Boundary Criteria will be considered at the next committee meeting.
The items in this table are not the only areas that could be changed

25

Consensus implies that you understand the

reason for making the decision and can
accept and support the decision.

While you may not like the decision, you can

live with that outcome or you can support it

This group will consider consensus 51% - if

that close there will be discussion on that
item and if after another vote it still remains
close to 51% that will be consensus

26

Questions and the use of the Clickers are to help RSP, Board of Education,
Administration, and the public better understand what you may be
thinking about the working draft as well as:
Keeping your mind engaged
Get immediate feedback
Answers will help with future discussions

27

Committee Recommendation Reasoning:

1. Create a scenario that addresses as many of the items the committee members
drew on Option 2A & 2B along with public input comments (survey and those in
attendance), as well as adjusting the EL and SPED programs location to adjust for
Core and Total Functional Capacity with the latest student data from the district

Not all of the committee changes worked based on a multitude of factors

This included moving the Orchard Prairie area to Lakewood Creek ES (Portion
of Area A)

Ideally would have liked this area to attend an elementary that is in the
Oswego East HS feeder system capacity limitation at The Wheatlands,
Homestead, and Wolfs Crossing, as well as traffic safety concerns influenced
the committee to have at Southbury as shown on 3B

2. Work toward having as many students close to schools attend that closest school
3. Have attendance areas that visually make sense in relation to proximity to schools,
neighborhoods and roads
4. Move forward both 3B and 3C JH and HS feeder options for the BOE to decide

28

Committee Recommendation Details:

1. 100% Recommend the provided Elementary Boundary (3B)

Consensus majority (90% or 100%) on all schools meeting BOE Prioritized

Boundary Criteria AND Guiding Principles
This included moving the Orchard Prairie area to Lakewood Creek ES (Portion
of Area A)
This included keeping Prescott Mill subdivision (Area L) at Southbury as
shown on the map for Scenario 3B
Ideally would have liked this area to attend an elementary that is in the
Oswego East HS feeder system capacity limitation at The Wheatlands,
Homestead, and Wolfs Crossing, as well as traffic safety concerns
influenced the committee to have at Southbury as shown on 3B

2. 100% Recommend moving forward Secondary 3B and 3C for the Board of

Education to determine which would be best for the community

Committee split on which of the three options would be best

3A: 11%, 3B: 49%, 3C: 40%

29

The Map to the left represents the

Committee Recommendation ES Option
3B & 3C to the Board of Education

30

Based on Core Functional Capacity

School

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
2. Boulder Hill Elementary
695
475
3. Churchill Elementary
590
550
5. Fox Chase Elementary
774
750
6. Grande Park Elementary
700
700
7. Homestead Elementary
702
650
8. Hunt Club Elementary
785
475
9. Lakewood Creek Elementary
925
925
10. Long Beach Elementary
652
644
11. Old Post Elementary
490
350
12. Prairie Point Elementary
632
600
13. Southbury Elementary
798
750
14. The Wheatlands Elementary
649
625
15. Wolf's Crossing Elementary
599
575
Total
8,991
8,069

School Year
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
411
408
406
410
561
541
533
532
600
580
582
585
565
556
558
573
589
569
555
551
405
419
445
462
804
799
770
766
574
562
550
535
344
343
341
328
473
440
408
396
568
586
614
620
589
566
544
539
519
493
458
439
7,002
6,861
6,764
6,736

Capacity %
FRL
2021/22 2021/22 2021/22
421
88.7%
48.6%
528
96.0%
9.2%
590
78.6%
31.4%
606
86.5%
8.7%
543
83.6%
14.0%
483
101.6%
16.4%
756
81.7%
23.6%
543
84.2%
43.1%
329
93.9%
15.7%
394
65.6%
7.6%
647
86.2%
16.9%
526
84.1%
15.7%
435
75.7%
14.4%
6,799

The newest EL and SPED

data has been applied:
Fewer SPED and EL
students than in
original database
Creates some
challenges in areas
Students pulled
through all years to
get at having a likely
enrollment at each
school

Note 1: Above table has all the EL (DL and SEI) and SPED removed from projections

Based on Total Core Functional Capacity

School

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
2. Boulder Hill Elementary
695
475
3. Churchill Elementary
590
550
5. Fox Chase Elementary
774
750
6. Grande Park Elementary
700
700
7. Homestead Elementary
702
650
8. Hunt Club Elementary
785
475
9. Lakewood Creek Elementary
925
925
10. Long Beach Elementary
652
644
11. Old Post Elementary
490
350
12. Prairie Point Elementary
632
600
13. Southbury Elementary
798
750
14. The Wheatlands Elementary
649
625
15. Wolf's Crossing Elementary
599
575
Total
8,991
8,069

31

School Year
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
547
544
542
546
585
565
557
556
628
608
610
613
565
556
558
573
633
613
599
595
656
670
696
713
804
799
770
766
584
572
560
545
400
399
397
384
493
460
428
416
601
619
647
653
601
578
556
551
536
510
475
456
7,633
7,492
7,395
7,367

2021/22
557
552
618
606
587
734
756
553
385
414
680
538
452
7,430

Capacity %
FRL
2021/22 2021/22
80.2%
46.3%
93.6%
9.8%
79.8%
31.9%
86.5%
8.7%
83.6%
16.8%
93.5%
22.8%
81.7%
23.6%
84.7%
43.0%
78.5%
17.7%
65.5%
8.6%
85.2%
16.8%
82.8%
16.3%
75.5%
15.0%

Note 1: Above table includes having the EL (DL and SEI) and SPED included in the numbers based on where their serving school in 2017/18

Orange shaded areas depict

where the enrollment
exceeds either the Total or
Core Functional Capacity of
the building

3B & 3C have same

Elementary
Attendance Areas

eE
Gr
le
an
m
de
en
ta
Pa
ry
Ho
rk
E
m
l
em
es
te
en
ad
ta
Hu
Ele
ry
nt
m
Cl
en
ub
ta
La
El
ry
em
ke
w
en
oo
ta
d
ry
Lo
Cr
ng
ee
kE
Be
ac
le
m
h
Ol
en
El
d
em
ta
Po
ry
st
en
E
t
ar
le
Pr
m
y
ai
en
rie
t
a
Po
ry
in
So
tE
ut
le
hb
m
ur
en
yE
ta
Th
ry
le
e
m
W
en
he
ta
at
ry
W
la
ol
n
d
f' s
sE
Cr
le
os
m
To
sin
en
ta
ta
g
lS
E
ry
le
tu
m
d
To
en
en
ta
ts
ta
lS
ry
Im
tu
p
de
ac
te
nt
d
sI
m
pa
ct
ed
%

an
sf
er
in
g
Bo
In
ul
to
de
:
rH
ill
Ch
El
ur
em
ch
en
ill
ta
El
ry
em
Fo
xC
en
ta
ha
ry
s

Tr

2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Current School:
Boulder Hill Elementary
Churchill Elementary
Fox Chase Elementary
Grande Park Elementary
Homestead Elementary
Hunt Club Elementary
Lakewood Creek Elementary
Long Beach Elementary
Old Post Elementary
Prairie Point Elementary
Southbury Elementary
The Wheatlands Elementary
Wolf's Crossing Elementary
Total

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
0
0
60

0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

110
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
114

34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34

0
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
9

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
142
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
142

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

146
53
4
142
0
8
0
0
0
0
67
0
0
420

24.7%
9.4%
0.8%
22.8%
0.0%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.9%
0.0%
0.0%
6.6%

SIBC is based on where a student resides and that change from current attendance area to proposed attendance area not
include EL or SPED

How To Read this Table:

32

Schools in first column = school should attend based on Reside for 2016/17
Schools in First Row = school the student would attend based on Committee Recommendation

Only Southbury has a broken ES to JH Feeder

33

The Map to the left represents the

Committee Recommendation JH
Option 3B to the Board of Education

34

Based on Core Functional Capacity

School
16. Bednarcik Junior High
17. Murphy Junior High
18. Plank Junior High
19. Thompson Junior High
20. Traughber Junior High
Total

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
1,080
1,064
1,188
1,110
1,163
1,050
1,240
1,200
1,224
1,200
5,895
5,624

2017/18
702
727
688
975
1,106
4,197

School Year
2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
695
684
644
729
741
738
661
656
643
940
941
923
1,116
1,057
1,051
4,140
4,079
4,000

Capacity %
FRL
2021/22 2021/22 2021/22
619
58.1%
14.6%
715
64.4%
12.5%
621
59.1%
34.1%
914
76.2%
27.8%
1,012
84.3%
17.7%
3,880

Note 1: Above table has all the EL (DL and SEI) and SPED removed from projections

Based on Total Core Functional Capacity

School
16. Bednarcik Junior High
17. Murphy Junior High
18. Plank Junior High
19. Thompson Junior High
20. Traughber Junior High
Total

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
1,080
1,064
1,188
1,110
1,163
1,050
1,240
1,200
1,224
1,200
5,895
5,624

2017/18
715
736
789
1,004
1,120
4,363

School Year
2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
708
697
657
738
750
747
762
757
744
969
970
952
1,130
1,071
1,065
4,306
4,245
4,166

Capacity %
FRL
2021/22 2021/22 2021/22
632
59.4%
15.2%
724
65.2%
12.6%
722
68.8%
35.5%
943
78.6%
27.7%
1,026
85.5%
18.0%
4,046

Note 1: Above table includes having the EL (DL and SEI) and SPED included in the numbers based on where their serving school in 2017/18

The new EL and SPED

data has been applied:
Fewer SPED and EL
students than in
original database
Creates some
challenges in areas
Students pulled
through all years to
get at having a
likely enrollment at
each school

Orange shaded areas depict

where the enrollment
exceeds either the Total or
Core Functional Capacity of
the building

Based on Total Core Functional Capacity

School
21. Oswego East High
22. Oswego High
Total

35

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
3,200
3,200
3,200
3,200
6,400
6,400

2017/18
2,619
2,830
5,449

School Year
Capacity %
FRL
2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22
2,745
2,786
2,843
2,863
89.5%
19.3%
2,845
2,887
2,913
2,908
90.9%
21.0%
5,590
5,673
5,756
5,771

3B & 3C have same

Elementary
Attendance Areas

Total

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
7
7

0
0
0
0
0
0

on
Tr
Ju
au
ni
gh
or
be
Hi
rJ
gh
To
u
ta
ni
lS
or
tu
Hi
d
gh
To
en
ta
ts
lS
Im
tu
pa
de
ct
nt
ed
sI
m
pa
ct
ed

Hi
gh
m

Th
o

Tr

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Current School:
Bednarcik Junior High
Murphy Junior High
Plank Junior High
Thompson Junior High
Traughber Junior High

ps

io
r

an
sf
er
in
g
Be
In
dn
to
ar
:
cik
Ju
M
ni
ur
or
ph
Hi
y
gh
Ju
ni
Pl
or
an
Hi
kJ
gh
un

3B

0
0
42
0
328
370

0
0
0
328
0
328

0
0
42
328
335
705

0.0%
0.0%
8.0%
51.6%
42.2%
24.1%

SIBC is based on where a student resides and that change from current attendance area to proposed attendance area not
include EL or SPED

With Option 3C being the current JH boundary no students would be impacted

How To Read this Table:

36

Schools in first column = school should attend based on Reside for 2016/17
Schools in First Row = school the student would attend based on Committee Recommendation

Tr

an
sf
er
in
g
Os
In
w
to
eg
:
o
Ea
Os
st
Hi
w
eg
gh
o
Hi
gh
To

ta
lS
tu
de
To
nt
ta
sI
lS
m
tu
pa
de
ct
nt
ed
sI
m
pa
ct
ed

3B

Current School:
21. Oswego East High
22. Oswego High
Total

0
20
20

90
0
90

90
20
110

4.5%
1.0%
2.7%

SIBC is based on where a student resides and that change from current attendance area to proposed attendance area not
include EL or SPED

With Option 3C being the current HS boundary no students would be impacted

How To Read this Table:

37

Schools in first column = school should attend based on Reside for 2016/17
Schools in First Row = school the student would attend based on Committee Recommendation

Boulder Hill, Grande Park, Hunt Club, Lakewood Creek, and Southbury has a broken ES to JH Feeder

38

The Map to the left represents the

Committee Recommendation JH
Option 3C to the Board of Education

39

Based on Core Functional Capacity

School
16. Bednarcik Junior High
17. Murphy Junior High
18. Plank Junior High
19. Thompson Junior High
20. Traughber Junior High
Total

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
1,080
1,064
1,188
1,110
1,163
1,050
1,240
1,200
1,224
1,200
5,895
5,624

2017/18
702
715
758
910
1,111
4,197

School Year
2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
695
684
644
717
733
731
743
732
714
899
891
891
1,086
1,039
1,020
4,140
4,079
4,000

Capacity %
FRL
2021/22 2021/22 2021/22
619
58.1%
14.6%
705
63.6%
12.6%
694
66.0%
35.4%
866
72.2%
26.8%
997
83.1%
16.7%
3,880

Note 1: Above table has all the EL (DL and SEI) and SPED removed from projections

Based on Total Core Functional Capacity

School
16. Bednarcik Junior High
17. Murphy Junior High
18. Plank Junior High
19. Thompson Junior High
20. Traughber Junior High
Total

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
1,080
1,064
1,188
1,110
1,163
1,050
1,240
1,200
1,224
1,200
5,895
5,624

2017/18
715
724
859
939
1,125
4,363

School Year
2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
708
697
657
726
742
740
844
833
815
928
920
920
1,100
1,053
1,034
4,306
4,245
4,166

Capacity %
FRL
2021/22 2021/22 2021/22
632
59.4%
15.2%
714
64.4%
12.7%
795
75.7%
36.5%
895
74.6%
26.7%
1,011
84.2%
17.0%
4,046

Note 1: Above table includes having the EL (DL and SEI) and SPED included in the numbers based on where their serving school in 2017/18

The new EL and SPED

data has been applied:
Fewer SPED and EL
students than in
original database
Creates some
challenges in areas
Students pulled
through all years to
get at having a
likely enrollment at
each school

Orange shaded areas depict

where the enrollment
exceeds either the Total or
Core Functional Capacity of
the building

Based on Total Core Functional Capacity

School
21. Oswego East High
22. Oswego High
Total

40

Functional Capacity
Total
Core
3,200
3,200
3,200
3,200
6,400
6,400

2017/18
2,723
2,727
5,449

School Year
Capacity %
FRL
2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22
2,842
2,881
2,944
2,957
92.4%
20.0%
2,748
2,792
2,812
2,815
88.0%
20.4%
5,590
5,673
5,756
5,771

3B & 3C have same

Elementary
Attendance Areas

Part 4:
Next Steps

41

Next Steps
Below are the Remaining Items for this Process:
Administration Recommendation of Student Attendance Exception Application
December 12, 2016 Approve Boundary Plan
December 13, 2016 Official Notification to families who are impacted by the changes
for the 2017/18 school year
December 13, 2016 Deploy Website Address Location Tool

42

NOTES
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

43