December 17 - Meeting Information

2021 Boundary Review Committee Meeting - 6:00-8:00 p.m., Thursday, December 17, 2020

YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/HIZ2Briqa1Q

Agenda:

  • Welcome
  • Review and approve minutes from last meeting
  • Questions from committee on (a) community correspondence and (b) springboard from last meeting with changes driven by stakeholder input
  • Elementary Boundary Introduction
  • Break out groups with driving question: Review new springboard and discuss any issues that come up in your groups
  • Break out groups report out and answer clarifying questions
  • Motions?
  • Wrap up (next agenda and any additional homework)
  • Adjourn

Meeting Mini Summary

2021 Boundary Review Committee - December 17, 2020

Official Action

The committee passed a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the 12/3 committee meeting. The committee also passed an amended motion to the updated springboard by a vote of 95%.

Discussion

For the second meeting, committee members were asked to approve the prior meeting’s minutes. There was discussion regarding community correspondence that had been received, as well as updates to the proposed springboard. Updates made included: 1. eliminating a proposed split at Sunset, 2. adjusting ES #16 boundaries, 3. keeping the Piece #54 neighborhoods at Discovery, 4. reassigning Piece #38 (Black Nugget) to PCMS and 5. recalculating splits at elementary schools. Committee members had a chance to break out into sessions to further discuss their thoughts on the updated springboard, and came back together to report out. A motion was made to approve the updated springboard, while an amended motion was made to approve the first three points of the springboard. This motion passed, while action was given to the Technical Team to refine information prior to the next meeting.

Up Next

Committee members will return for the next meeting on January 7. During this time in between meetings, the Technical Team will continue to refine boundary maps District-wide as well looking into middle school splits for further discussion. The next meeting will spend time walking through the updates to the amended springboard proposal with the Technical team, as well as starting to focus on middle school boundaries. 

Official Meeting Minutes

2021 Boundary Review Committee - December 17, 2020

Welcome

  • Boundary Review Committee (BRC) members were welcomed by Dr. Josh Almy and CFO Jake Kuper
  • 39 voting BRC members were present, out of 40 total members, meeting quorum requirements
    • Quorum established at 12/3 meeting - 75% of all committee members
    • Quorum reached for 12/17 meeting - 98%

Agenda Review

  • Walkthrough of agenda with BRC members
  • Walkthrough of Boundary Review 2021 website, linked from the ISD webpage
    • All workgroup materials will be found at this location

Review and Approve Minutes from 12/3 Meeting

  • BRC members were given a chance to review minutes from previous meeting
  • Motion was made by Tyrell Hardtke, then seconded to approve minutes as presented
    • Results: All BRC voting members approved – MOTION CARRIED
    • Minutes will now be designated as official

Q&A from BRC Members re: Community Correspondence and Updated Springboard

  • Based on community input, springboard has been updated to address concerns. Mr. Kuper walked BRC members through changes
    • Eliminate proposed split at Sunset so 100% of students feed to IMS
    • Adjust boundaries to eliminate split at ES #16 so 100% of students feed to PCMS
    • Piece #54 neighborhoods remains at Discovery; Piece #44 from Creekside will move to ES #17
    • Black Nugget Piece #38 reassigned to PCMS from IMS
    • Recalculation and confirmation of % splits at each elementary school
      • IVE 70%/30% split – 70% IMS & 30% MS #6
      • Sunny Hills 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% PCMS
      • Discovery 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% BLMS
    • BRC members then asked questions and provided feedback to committee from input received from their respective communities
    • Lisa Reeder (Discovery)
      • Why are we not allowing the general public to dial into the Zoom portion to express concerns directly?
        • Answer: BRC is a meeting of the public, not a public meeting (unlike School Board meetings). BRC is a dedicated workgroup (not a public body) with charter and goals. If we were able to meet in person, public would be allowed to sit in back of room and observe work but would not be able to intercede, present, etc. Public is welcome to watch on YouTube channel as well as use email inbox for input.
      • Interested in seeing map of 80%/20% Discovery split
        • Answer: Transportation provided map
      • Kelly Butterworth (Sunset)
        • Community pleased that Sunset is able to stay together
        • Why would Sunset go to IMS vs MS #6?
        • Why don’t Cougar Ridge and Sunset go together to same MS?
          • Answer: Sunset / Cougar Ridge was split about 20 years ago due to population. Sunset “could” work heading to new MS #6 – however, the first priority of MS #6 is to decrease students at Maywood MS. Due to this shift, Sunset will be placed at IMS.
        • Kuper mentioned Grand Ridge Kindergartners coming back onsite to Grand Ridge
        • Kuper also noted the feeder pattern, as originally presented, may have led to more confusion than necessary, especially as we are not currently discussing High School boundaries
        • Jo Ellen Tapper (Maple Hills Principal)
          • Discovery 80%/20% split to Middle Schools – interested in how High School boundaries play a role in this split
            • Answer: Current High School boundaries stay the same. Even though Discovery will be getting split for Middle School, students come back together in High School.
          • Marcelle Waldman (IVE)
            • We are pulling more students from IVE to MS #6. Does this include base of Squak Mtn? What are student numbers from Talus?
              • Answer: MS #6 is site constrained with no room for portables. Conservative student numbers are given. IMS is a larger building than MS #6. Talus has planned growth. From base of Squak to 900 corridor, approximately 67 students.
            • Questions / statements from community
              • Why can’t Lakemont attend one school? Why split between Cougar Ridge and Newcastle?
                • Answer: Due to population growth, numerically impossible to have all of Lakemont area into one building.
              • Pinecrest neighborhood has been moved from Clark to ES #16 on boundary map?
                • Answer: Pinecrest will remain at Clark
              • Creekside has been positive towards boundary changes

Elementary Boundary Introduction

  • Kuper asked that BRC members, when reviewing the elementary boundaries referenced the following items:
    • Updated springboard that included five new updates
    • Maps of updated boundaries
    • Piece key
    • Noted that PLMS is getting larger and BLMS getting smaller, leading to recalculated splits
  • Dana Rundle noted that in Piece #65, going to ES #17 there were 2 MS students going to a different MS
    • Transportation to look into this piece
  • Lisa Reeder asked if in Pieces #49A & #50 if bus routes would be available – Yes

Group Breakout and Discussion

  • Groups were sent into breakout rooms to review and discuss new springboard proposals and bring back any issues

Group Report Out

  • Group 1 – Jo Ellen Tapper spokesperson
    • Even though not discussing High Schools, overall theme through discussion, concern about friendships from ES to MS to HS
    • Overall positive feedback on revisions making boundaries cleaner
    • Concerned about equity of 80%/20% splits – feelings of “otherness” from the smaller %
      • Could Discovery be split 50%/50%?
    • No boundary change for Grand Ridge even though kindergartners coming back?
      • Answer: Due to declining size of cohorts, no change needed.
    • Group 2 – Lisa Reeder spokesperson
      • Overall positive reception of new springboard
      • As with other groups, theme of High Schools through discussion
      • Wondering if MS #6 feeder patterns would change, sending some students back to Liberty?
        • Answer: The new High School will be built equidistance from Skyline and Issaquah High. Talus students most likely will go to Issaquah High.
      • Messaging of BLMS and PLMS students meeting up again in High School
      • Maps are tough to read – can icons be added for schools, and some major road names?
        • Answer: Transportation will work to update school locations and main arterials.
      • Group 3 – Erin McKee spokesperson
        • Sunset staying together to IMS is positive
        • Lakemont community (Sunset / Cougar Ridge) would like to attend MS together, but due to population size this is not attainable as priority is moving kids from Maywood
        • Concern for Newcastle students leaving MMS and going to MS #6 – will there be socioeconomic issues / perceptions?
      • Group 4 – Tim Baynes spokesperson
        • Positive overall about Creekside, PCMS, Sunny Hills boundary changes
        • MS conversation about socioeconomic perceptions
      • Group 5 – Carrie Reckling spokesperson
        • Positive overall to proposed changes
        • Pieces #49A & #50 – could these pieces go to Endeavour then BLMS? Grouping community together earlier?
        • ES #16 – will this building be overcrowded before opening? Or alleviated when ES #17 opens?
          • Answer: This is addressed by Piece #38 Black Nugget. ~ 146 students
        • Socioeconomic concerns
          • Answer: Socioeconomic data for ES’s and MS’s – overall District is homogenous, and re-boundaries historically do not take this into consideration. Racial data can be made available but will not influence boundaries.
        • Program placement concerns
          • Program placement and movement is done by District administration. New programs may be established, some programs may move, and other programs try to stay regionalized if possible (example: LRC 2).

Motions

  • Kuper recapped what was said by the groups, as well as emerging themes of the conversation. He noted potential of some further homework on reviewing splits.
  • Motion was made by Dana Randle to bring forward and approve all 5 updates to springboard proposal. Andrew Guss seconded.
    • Eliminate proposed split at Sunset so 100% of students feed to IMS
    • Adjust boundaries to eliminate split at ES #16 so 100% of students feed to PCMS
    • Piece #54 neighborhoods remains at Discovery; Piece #44 from Creekside will move to ES #17
    • Black Nugget Piece #38 reassigned to PCMS from IMS
    • Recalculation and confirmation of % splits at each elementary school
      • IVE 70%/30% split – 70% IMS & 30% MS #6
      • Sunny Hills 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% PCMS
      • Discovery 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% BLMS
    • Amendment was made to motion by Lisa Reeder. Her amendment asked to approve 1 – 3 updates ONLY from the updated springboard. Kelly Butterworth seconded.
      • Eliminate proposed split at Sunset so 100% of students feed to IMS
      • Adjust boundaries to eliminate split at ES #16 so 100% of students feed to PCMS
      • Piece #54 neighborhoods remains at Discovery; Piece #44 from Creekside will move to ES #17
    • Vote was taken on if members were ready to vote on motion.
    • Results: of 39 present members: 36 YES, 2 NO, 1 abstained
      • 92% - meets passage requirement of 75% - MOTION CARRIED
    • Vote than taken to vote on amended motion
      • Results: of 39 present members: 37 YES, 0 NO, 2 abstained
      • 95% - meets passage requirements of 75% - MOTION CARRIED

Overview of Next Meeting and Closure

  • Technical Team will work on updating boundary maps and continue to look into details of Black Nugget piece and MS splits
  • Focus will be on refining elementary boundary details as well as starting middle school boundary detail discussions
  • Reach out to Dr. Almy or Mr. Kuper with any questions in the interim
  • Next meeting – January 7 @ 6PM