Friday, January 17, 2014

BCS Questions from the 1/16/14 Overcrowding Meeting

Beverly Cleary Short-Term Enrollment Relief Options: 
Questions/Comments from 1/16 Meeting

·       Why not move all of K-4 or 5 to RCP? New BCS on 2 campuses - Fernwood and RCP
·       Why not close Hollyrood temporarily and move K-2 to RCP?
·       Why is it least likely that K-1 would move to Rose City?  They can stay together there.
·       How does option 1 help Hollyrood?
·       Can you elaborate on “professional development” limitations?
·       Is PPS committed to funding option 1 including – additional staff: PE teachers, certified librarians, library books, art/music teachers, additional administrator?
·       Would there be a dedicated BCS administrator on site?
·       How would moving 7th and 8th grade free up any ground floor classroom space at Fernwood?
·       Will the district provide additional FTE to help cover travel time for elective staff between sites?
·       If we have more classrooms and can spread out kids do we get more teachers to make class sizes smaller?
·       Would we have librarians, VP's, counselors?
·       Where are additional “ground floor” classrooms per code at Fernwood?
·       Why not temporary structures?
·       What is the maximum capacity of RCP?
·       What are the population constrains of the 3 proposed locations: Hollyrood, Fernwood, Rose City Park?  How from an over enrollment by grade standpoint would they best be mapped with potential existing resources?
·       Can you pull data to see which grades have the most families with 2 kids in grades that could move together?
·       If 1st grade moves to Fernwood, are there enough rooms on the ground level at Fernwood for 2nd graders?
·       Why not make a 1/2 split class or K/1 split to make more space?
·       Will adding a 3rd campus cost more money?  Will this come out of existing money and altering teacher FTE or will additional funding will be provided?
·       Do they get extra electives – moving to RCP – Gym? Art?
·       Is Rose City Park school up to code, etc.?
·        How does seismic safety of RCP compare to other PPS facilities?
·       Why was RCP closed in 2007? 
·       Campfire in all locations?
·       Would there be 3 libraries?
·       If grades 7 & 8 moved to RCP, how would electives for remaining 6th graders at Fernwood be handled?
·       How would elective choices be affected for the 7th or 8th graders if they moved to Rose City?
·       Explain: What is the ACCESS program?  How would it affect the grader to move to RCP?
·       Which grade level (s) would emotionally be a better fit with ACCESS students (is age a factor when it comes to being comfortable with kids designated as "gifted"?
·       Would option #1 put any limitations on entry of new K students?
·       Would you keep a school (Hollyrood) open in the future if it only has Kindergarten?
COMMENTS (Some stated in the form of questions)
·       You cannot shift part of first grade to BCF.  This would dismount our very successful walk to Read program as well as other academic programs.  If first grade is to move it needs to be all or nothing.
·       Splitting the 1st grade classrooms is NOT community!
·       Don't like splitting a grade between buildings.  This seems the best option #1.
·       Do not split up a grade if students go to RCP.
·       I think splitting a grade level between two campuses would be near impossible for a team to maintain connection/community for staff and students.
·       Move whole grades to RCP with ACCESS.  I like this option for a number of reasons, but the least palatable is the idea of splitting 1st grade (I guess, actually that happens around the City anyway…) what would it take to keep 1st graders together?
·       Splitting 1st grade doesn’t seem like an insurmountable option – but would you consider just moving one grade to reduce the number of kids impacted?  Also seems like the impact should be focused on kids not impacted by Grant closure…
·       How are we going to do school-wide events being on 3 campuses?
·       Concern - 3 kids at 3 campuses!!! Yikes!
·       2nd graders are already planning to move to a new building , so RCP would be a less disruptive move.
·       I don't agree that this keeps the community united.  Why did they close RCP and forced those families to come to BCS?  Isn't this part of the reason for the problem? Not just our "popularity"?
·       Move some grades to RCP.  As a one-year solution moving 7 and 8 wouldn't be horrible (I have a 6th grader now) if they had good staff and maybe sweeten deal with ACCESS program inclusion.  They are most independent, on bikes, walking, most grown up.
·       If you move 2 graders to RCP, please make sure they are contiguous grades (e.g., 2-3 rather than 1-4).  I feel strongly about this both for program purposes and because it is more child-centered (socially they want to be with peers/near pears)
·       Students who live in the BCS neighborhood would be displaced (potentially) by students who may be transfers or grandfathered in after moving out.  The "current community" would be difficult to maintain on 3 campuses.
·       Logistics of child care and transportation (start time?), Camp Fire? Are so important to our families.  This is too hard to judge without knowing that information.  This affects my career.  Questions - child care, transportation, start times, safety. 
·       Need to provide transportation as RCP is no longer a walkable distance. 
·       #1 introduces safety concerns by increasing traffic and a number of car trips. 
·       Provide Campfire at all campuses.  NOT in favor of splitting grades.  Like the space casement (lunchroom, library, gym).
·       This option would split Campfire up even further if 2 & 3 go to RCP.  Seems unsustainable for that reason and staff will be stretched super thin.  Will the benefit outweigh?
·       Does not keep community together.  Eliminates K-8 philosophy.  Staff stretched – older/younger interactions?  We already have had kids at 3 locations – difficult transport.  Doesn’t necessarily keep all kids together in one grade.
·       7 and 8 to RCP could be really great! Access to ACCESS electives, support, etc.
·       Excellent option.  Grades 7 and 8 would be optimal – no need for child care considerations, great opportunities for synergy with electives. 
·       Why not move just 7th and 8th grade to RCP?  There are still some middle schools in Portland!
·       Have you considered not having the current 6th and 7th grade students move to Rose City?  The reason is because they will already disrupted for two years during the Grant reconstruction.
·       I think opening up the RCP as a “campus” of Beverly Cleary…  Why not treat it like a “Jr High” and have 7th and 8th graders at RCP Campus of Beverly Cleary?
·       Would you consider moving one grade to RCP to be the least disruptive to the fewest number of kids (2nd grade)?  I’m concerned if we move 7 and 8 that would give precedent to creating a permanent middle school – BOO!
·       I would rather keep the mid school intact at one school.  How will I manage 3 kids at 3 schools?  How will I get them there?
·       Please remember that some grades are going to be sent to Marshall for 2 out of 4 of their high school year.  Please don’t disrupt those kids further.
·       If third campus, moving 7th and 8th to RCP would create an almost middle school like atmosphere – which would not be a terrible situation.  Def.  move all of 1st to Fernwood.
·       I know ACCESS kids are at RCP, but if they can be moved around within the building, can there be enough ground floor space for the littlest kids? Is this the issue?  It seems more disruptive to move kids already attending the two existing BCS campuses.
·       Seems like 7 and 8th graders going to RCP would be most feasible.
·       Our Kindergartners were stuffed in Cafeteria last year. Why didn't they benefit from this?  UNITED yet DIVIDED.  Makes more sense to cap and set boundaries than to shift everything around.  This is the least desirable for most families.  If our 2nd graders go to RCP, where do they go for 3rd?
·       The Hollyrood campus seems like a luxury. 
·       Would it make sense to close Hollyrood and use the Fernwood and RCP buildings, 2 sites again?
·       Will RCP ever re-open as a neighborhood school?  Seems like this would solve our problems.
·       At first this option seems the best - moving oldest kids who are independent could work well.  Does this accommodate continued growth best?  Whatever we set up now well set a precedent for district wide.
·       My preference is for this option.
·       I think it's imperative to keep the BC community together.
·       How can we evaluate this as a choice without knowing which grades would move? Why can't we know now whether 1st grade would be split?
·       Why is re-opening RCP just a temporary option?  It seems this is a long-term solution for our community, not a short-term one.  But I'm concerned about my child being a part of a school with new un-tested administration.  For older grades, there is already sharing w/Grant - not possible if shifting to RCP.
·       Regardless of which option is chosen, shouldn't all kids who no longer live in the BCS neighborhood return to their neighborhood schools?
·       Suggestion: 7 and 8 at RCP.  Kids could walk home from there or take a bus back to Fernwood to help parents with multiple kids at multiple campuses
·       Does this decision set precedent as a litmus test of sorts for permanent redistricting of boundaries?
·       Should consider equities of disruption on various grades including those most impacted by Grant move.  Want to avoid zig zagging of Hollyrood to Fernwood to Rose City to Fernwood.  Make a more sensible decision.
·       Option 1 seems best for the community - seems most fair to move 2-3 as these kids will not be impacted by Grant HS remodel move.  Also seems like great solution for campfire.  Please value Campfire in decision.
·       Safety - Operating three campuses will increase travel # of car trips that are bound to increase # of accidents to our children.  So will there be shuttles, buses or walking to minimize vehicle traffic ?
·       Move 7th 8th grade to Rose City Park? This was the structure I experienced having 2 yrs. of a smaller more intimate experience with my classmates in that age group .  My time in a bldg. that housed grades 9-12.
·       The  4th - 8th graders will move during the HS re-model.  It's fair to spread the burden and move younger kids who will benefit from the new bldg.
·       Parent who is also a teacher has taught in K-5 & K-8, moving 7th & 8th graders to RCP would be more like a middle school model.  Works as well as K-5 model does not think K-8 model works as well.
·       Would not work to split 1st grade between two campuses. Existing programs couldn't continue.
·       So kids would "temporarily" move to either a different neighborhood school (Roseway Heights or Irvington) or Rose City Park… and then be moved AGAIN the following year with a permanent boundary change?
·       Would the temporary boundary selected be likely to become permanent when redistricting occurs?
·       What do you mean by temporary boundary change?  Isn't there any way to project 2 years out so families can plan for the future?
·       Can boundary change occur next year?
·       How likely is the boundary change to become permanent?
·       This option seems the best because boundary change is inevitable.  So why not make the "permanent" boundary change now?  Why does every decision have to be so short-term?
·       If RCP was to have a neighborhood component class for younger students how could you control quality for this plan?
·       If RCP re-opened, would it be a K-8 eventually or feed into Fernwood?  What high school would it feed into?
·       If kids (47th east) were sent to RCP would it be a new school or would it be a BC school?
·       Are 78 kids across all grade?
·        Would this be expensive for infrastructure, teachers, lunch rooms, library, principal, etc. ?
·       Does RCP have after school program? 
·       Can we open a school in half a year and give us the same quality?
·       If sent to RCP or Irvington would decision be made in time for Camp Fire parents to sing up?  Or guarantee a spot at new school?
·       What are Roseway Heights and Irvington projections - are we creating a new overcrowding problem?
·       What is the available capacity at Gregory Heights?  By population? By Class levels?
·       If RCP were to become a neighborhood school which high school would it feed into?
·       I realize east of 47th is only an example, but please explain the number of students you arrived at.  There appears to be over 200 students east of 47th.
·       Why limit it to K-2 students?
·       What if this does not resolve issue the following year?
·       I was unclear on how RCP would collect those "new" students who my come east of 47th?  Please explain.
·       If there is the prospect of a "starter school at RCP, would electives, childcare, etc. be immediately available?
·       What if option is moved forward and either Superintendent OR School Board vote it down?  Then what?
·       Do we know this solution could hold through the 2015-16 boundary change process?
·       Can you ensure families would get all their kids in one place?
·       If you live on 28th which school would our child attend?
·       What about kids (K-2) currently outside the BCS boundary?  Do they transfer to their neighborhood school?
·       Is Roseway Heights for East of whatever the only option? Rigler?
·       How would this affect the other schools that the grades would "temporarily" attend?  Would this bring those schools to overcrowding issues? For example, Irvington.
·       If you open RCP, can we guarantee the high school lines won't change?
·       Why would we allow student to stay to the highest grade?  Seems unnecessary and problematic.
·       Why is PPS considering Roseway Heights for this option? 
·       Who determines if it is Roseway Heights or RCP?
·       Please clarify which students?  Current K, 1 (13-14) plus future Kindergarten?  Or just K-1 in 14-15?
·       Are you sure other boundary decision will be made by 2015-16?
·       Would siblings be considered to be able to stay if they have brothers/sisters at Fernwood?  Would have multiple campuses for families.
·       Would you consider creating a BCS only class, intact, at the other existing school (Irvington, Roseway Heights)? Or merge kids in with other classes so they would be in community?
·       Why is Roseway Heights considered if RCP which is much closer and is available?
·       Would we know by Feb. 2014 decision whether going to RCP or Roseway?
·       How were boundaries selected?  The two options each free up different numbers of students.  It would seem more fair if the number of students freed were equal (would seem less arbitrary.
·       Are there race and/or socio-economic ramifications for moving west and/or east?  Doesn't it mostly create a rich neighborhood?
·       Would any teachers go to RCP or will these students get new, sub-par teachers and staff?
·       Why is there a contradiction from last years meeting?  It was stated last year that boundary changes would not fix our problem.  Tonight the opposite.  How boundary change will correct and this will only affect 2014/15?

COMMENTS (Some stated in the form of questions)
·       Any boundary change should be part of a long-term change.  I like the idea of having a neighborhood component at Rose City Park through option #2.
·       Boundary shift would be hard as a temp fix.  This would have the biggest impact on the kids which we need to be most sensitive to.
·       You stated this is a temporary option.  It appears all are.
·       Not knowing where PPS is on the permanent, boundary change, it does not seem that option 2 coupled with permanent changes in the future makes sense.  Can you do this temp boundary change to align with most likely future changes?
·       I don't believe (you) that this will be temporary - I just don't.  I thought Roseway Heights is FULL?  Is it?  This option stinks!
·       It is really important to make this with a more long term view even though it's considered a short term solution.
·       Concern with temporary boundary change.  Creates  feeder pattern.
·       Temp Boundary Change disrupts the community more than moving student to RCP (option 1).
·       Poor idea -temporarily disruptive, and probably will effect HS boundaries. Really hard on kids in schools in families.
·       As a family that would not be disrupted by this, it seems like a terrible idea because it may potentially (or very likely) split families into two separate communities.  Also, thought the caveat is "temporary", this is more likely to become permanent.  Benefits seem very small, very short-sighted solution.  Also more students could be entering due to new types of housing.
·       My concern is that this change would be permanent and not temporary, which would really tear apart our lovely BCS community.  This is the worst option!
·       Wouldn't moving older children who have had the benefit of this high quality education to a smaller scale Jr. high be a smooth transition since they have years of training as well as unique need for HS preparation?
·       Option 2 seems to result in a single class of K, 1 and/or 2 at RCP.  That seems to create a serious lack of "community" within those grades.
·       The options PPS presents are not the only options.  If they were, Hollyrood would have been closed along with RCP. 
·       We lose neighborhood/community connectivity of children in our neighborhood.  Some kids would go to Fernwood. Some kids to Rose City/Irvington - very disruptive to a neighborhood connection for kids.
·       We think reopening RCP to K-2 would be less disruptive to BCS as a whole than option 1.  Much less.
·       More info on sibling provisioning.  Boundaries must be defined prior to decisions.
·       Boundary change seems to be the best logical choice.  Population growth can support going back to old boundaries.  But if it won't support a long term solution for overcrowding it obviously won't work.
·       Property values, people moved here specifically for children to attend BCS -unfair to them.
·       Sending new + young students west of 57th "back" to RCP makes sense.  Sandy Blvd. is a real border - kids are unlikely to walk/bike all the way over to 33rd.  Walking to RCP would be great.
·       There was already a RCP school and PPS closed it.  NOW there is a mess.
·       What about Sandy Blvd as a border.  Safety issues crossing a busy street.
·       This option seems more disruptive to the community as a whole.  However, it might make sense for families with multiple kids. 
·       Potentially gets back to the old problem of elementary student attending Madison feeder but being a part of Grant.
·       Just changing grades K-2 does not seem to free up enough space.  Maybe K-5?
·       Many of your changes seem too conservative and may need revising again.
·       Sounds like option 2a:Irvington, 2b. 47th - RCP, 2c. 47th - RWH so my preference, reaction varies by the option!
·       If you do it across grades K-5 it frees up more space.
·       Confirm - no impact to 3-8 kids? Do not impact older kids.
·       Like option of program start @ RCP Must reopen RCP as a neighborhood school.
·       Awful - very disruptive!
·       A huge benefit of this option is that it reestablishes a neighborhood school component to RCP.  What about the option of including (some) older grades.  That would provide more relief AND create strong neighborhood component.
·       Too divisive.
·       New K-2 with 78 students at RCP?  That needs way more definition to be a real option for consideration.
·       Shifting those east of 47th would have less of an impact if they shifted to RCP not Roseway Heights.  Too hard to assimilate into an already established school.
·       Imperative as a community to avoid option #2/Temporary boundary change.  Need to stick together as a neighborhood.
·       RCP is a good option, but I do not want to trek to Roseway.  Please make it clear if RCP or Roseway.
·       This option does not seem particularly effective or efficient.
·       Creating 1K, 1 1st and 1 2nd grade classroom by themselves at RCT (W/ACCESS) would be challenging for teachers to create curriculum for their students as there would be no opportunities for grade level colleagues to collaborate.  If there is a boundary change it needs to be to a school that allows grade levels to be together.
·       This sounds like a really disruptive solution - hearing current K-1 students move to a different school for one year and then return.  Unless you are planning to make RCP a neighborhood school (again!) then this option should not be considered.
·       As a staff member, option 2 creates less program disruptions.
·       Option 2 is a great deal of upheaval for our kids - moving into an establish community and perhaps moving back to BCS.
·       Terrible option for the kids.  It puts them with few others all alone in a new school. 
·       I would not mind RCP but Roseway Heights is very far NE, comparatively, and it doesn't have a great reputation for academics.
·       If we are going to change our boundary for the long term solution.  Maybe rip off the band aid now if it will become permanent anyway?  Not much bang for your buck?
·       Terrible, terrible idea.  Also seems unlawful given that the Board might approve boundary changes.
·       I purchased my house with the expectation that my children would go to Beverly Cleary & Grant High.  This change could also affect the desirability of my neighborhood, property values, etc.  Children will be shuffled to multiple schools with different kids..etc..
·       If option 2 is the "solution" this effects the education of our children from K-8 and then again in high school.  This boundary change puts our children in a disadvantaged position regarding their educations.  If you are east of 47th the kids would also be put in Madison High School.  This would affect the values of our homes which threatens our financial outlooks and our children's educations.
·       Teachers and staff should bear out the effects of this not the kids.
·       Frees up the least classrooms
·       The geographic solution ignores income and diversity in peers and would likely decrease diversity.
·       West of 28th families will leave and go to private school.  Can't make decisions without knowing provisions for siblings.
·       How can PPS consider putting Fernwood kids into Rose City if you remember the closing of Rose City School - there was not good feelings between these two groups in the same neighborhood.  Now we are going to move into their school very bad for our community feeling and love.

·       When the boundary changes happen permanently, will the kids who have transferred in be then forced to move?
·       How many kids per grade 2-8 would this mean if " non Beverly Cleary neighborhood" kids were assigned back to their neighborhood school?
·       How are kids decided? Which kids get to go?
·       For families that live in the BCS boundary:  If kindergartner was transferred, would they be able to return to BCS after district boundary change?
·       What is this soonest a kindergarten lottery could be completed? And students reassigned.
·       Could PPS/BC give preference to incoming K students who have siblings already enrolled at BC?
·       Will there be a say in where the kids would go?
·       Would that free up enough classrooms at Fernwood? "Are out of attendance area" students spread out by grade level or more prevalent in a few grades?
·       We live 3 blocks from the school, have a child going into 2nd grade, and an incoming kindergartener.  Would my kindergartener go into the lottery?
·       Why can't we keep 4 K classes?  Limit enrollment to neighborhood still?
·       How many students are transfer students?
·       Can option 2 be combined with the part of option 3 to their neighborhood schools?
·       Doesn't 27 kinders make a new class?
·       Could enrollment in grades k-2 be capped, while enrollment in upper grades not be capped?  (Non-neighborhood students in upper grades would not be required to move to their neighborhood schools.)
·       It the school board likely to approve this option?  Has it been vetted?
·       How does this resolve space issues at Fernwood?
·       Does this mean that you will "crack down" on older students who do not live in the boundary?  I personally know of 2, 2nd graders using false addresses to attend BCS.
·       How would this affect teaching staff?
·       Why wouldn't we take the non-resident students out in every option? Or first before all else?
·       Would you allow mid-year enrollment based on attrition?  Could other grades ( other thank) also be capped and utilize a lottery?
·       This one is confusing.  I don't understand.  If they aren't in our neighborhood, why are they going here anyway?  What constitutes " neighborhood school"?
COMMENTS (Some stated in the form of questions)
·       Yuck! Too many contingencies, like whether siblings have preference in the lottery.  Not enough movement of students of BCF(i.e. no class/grade has enough students removed to open a classroom up)
·       We've been told for several years that we are a no transfer school yet we do have transfer (siblings, hardship)  To be fair all these transfers should be cancelled not just some, at all grades.  The charts show a large number of transfers - 6 transfer just in kinder would have kinder year at 27/28.
·       No Thanks!
·       If this is the option selected, I would urge you to give preference to students with siblings already at BCS.
·       At least with this option, kids don't have to move 2-3 times.  They could stay at the school that they lottery into.  Best option.  There are not that many overflow students.
·       You cannot boot kids who are part of this school.  How would this improve #'s ?  You would remove a handful of kids from each grade.  The people impacted area as much a part of this community as anyone.   Doesn't  fix for next year.
·       This is the fairest option and seems to make the most sense.  Yes, relief may be smaller than the other 2 options would provide but according to PPS , this "relief" is only needed for 1 year before boundary changes are made.  Definitely the most painless option.
·       Solution does not seem adequate enough; perhaps should be implemented anyway for fairness, but in conjunction with other options that have a more meaningful impact.
·       This option doesn't solve any problems.  I don't understand why this is even really considered at Fernwood or even at Hollyrood. 
·       Sounds wrong to have to lottery to go to your own neighborhood school.
·       Yes.  Option 3 seems fair.  It seems completely untenable to keep grandfathering in students who have moved out of the neighborhood.
·       It seems that Portland is in a long-term growth period.  On top of that there are areas of this neighborhood that are under construction  ( more condos, taking large lots and putting two homes where there used to be one) It seems that there should be a more significant consideration for a long term solution that will accommodate for the least short term disruption to those students in the system as well as those just entering.  On top of it all many people have spent considerable time, energy and resources to be in the Beverly Cleary Pipeline.  How can they be taken care of and provide the best education for the kids?
·       This option seems manifestly unfair to people with young children moving into the neighborhood.  Cutting students from outside the boundary is a fine idea.
·       Don't like this process/option.  Need to confirm students are residents of the neighborhood, this currently is not happening.
·       Is the best option.  If not this then option #1.
·       27 students in kindergarten is still too many students.  It does not allow for adequate and sufficient instruction.  Doesn't 27 kinders make a new class?
·       The empty classroom would be filled by a 5th and 1st grade.  There would still be no open spaces at Hollyrood.
·       This is the 2nd worst option regarding the disruption to the BCS community.  Families who live in the current boundary shouldn't have to lottery their kindergartener for neighborhood school.  Siblings must be considered!
·       As harsh as it is it only seems fair that those who move to other neighborhoods can no longer attend BCS.  Many of us make sacrifices to stay in this neighborhood.  However, doesn't seem like it sufficiently solves problems.  Capping enrollment for K doesn't sound right!
·       Not fair next year's 1st graders to keep classes so big.
·       Lack of clarity as to where " lottery" kids would go makes it difficult to assess impact.
·       This option is troubling - the idea of moving kids already at BC ( but not in the neighborhood in via transfer) is so disruptive to those students and families.  Possible long term ramifications without the resulting relief needed.
·       K lottery seems unfair.  Also this would sound better if it was definitely going to provide enough relief.
·       This is impossible to police and enforce.  This is divisive and puts neighbor against neighbor.  Seems like huge nasty effort w/out reach and enforcement for very little effect. 
·       Capping enrollment slots not even worthy of a question.
·       Will create a hunger games mentality about who gets in first, second.  Division instead of community building. 
·       It’s a logistical and administrative nightmare for those who don't get in through the lottery.
·       Don’t support this idea but need to think about:  Preference for siblings.  Makes sense here - try to disrupt as few families as possible.  When would lottery happen? Families need time to plan - transport, aftercare, prepare third incoming K students.
·       I don't understand how there hasn't been an enrollment cap - there is only a finite amount of space in the schools - this might work in the long term combined with a boundary change.
·       Logistics, coordination, equality seems overwhelming.  Option 1 seems most logical.
·       Option 3 most fair to existing students minimum disruption to them.  BCS should not have kids from other neighborhoods - No room! Short term solution is ok - long term coming with boundary changes
·       Seems like another way of offering Option TWO, because it seems like there are many students in the east/west boundary area who are still as of this and area in the BCS community who would not be coming in.  Lottery blind? Or sibling preference?
·       Please please please have sibling preference if enrollment is capped. Please
·       Feels very difficult for kindergarteners pick on those not yet engaged.  Especially hard for siblings.
·       Students on transfer need to return to NH school who are attending BC.

·       Would option 1 or 2 allow for the sibling of a current non-NH BCS student to attend BCS next year for kindergarten?
·       Student achievement was not mentioned.  Can you  please speak to this concern and how the option on the table specifically address student achievement?
·       How much will this cost of any of these changes be a factor in the decision?
·       Why not waive the usual permitting procedure for portables?
·       Where are we in the process of long-term growth management.  Can we share information now so it can be considered in connection with short-term 1st year changes?
·       Would it be easier to address the boundary issue this year if were moving in that direction for 2015?
·       What about an opt-in process to seed one each K-1 classroom at RCP?  Likely to draw people who live close by or are otherwise more accepting of the option.
·       Is next year too soon to open Rose City? It seems like there is a neighborhood population to support it.
·       I've heard Beaumont MS has space; might we send 8th grades there? Can we put additional portables @ Grant for 8th graders?
·       Why was decision to make BCS K-8? (Wasn't here then)  Wouldn't turning the school back to K-5, 6-8 (Rose City Park) work?
·       How is this working to accommodate where longer term solutions are going?
·       When long term boundary changes happens, will existing BC students be grandfathered in?
·       Why is the 2014 -15 enrollment projected so low relative to all previous years? Does this create a risk that the solution being sought will not be adequate if enrollment is higher than projected?
·       What about F.T.E. would Hollyrood lose a kindergarten teacher?
·       How long would this be for?
·       Who will make the final recommendation to the Superintendent?
·       Is PPS considering a combination of options (e.g., both options 1 and 3)?

COMMENTS (Some stated in the form of questions)
·       Keep siblings together as much as possible.
·       This should not be looked at as a short term option! Look more long term.  Minimize moves for kids, make logical and thoughtful & planful decisions now.
·       If you want to minimize disruptions, please consider adding portables to the list of options.
·       Maintain a strong community support for our schools.
·       How can we create one building to serve the entire community? New state of the art school built west of the existing Fernwood building!!!
·       Are you considering the mass exodus to private education in your projected enrollment? Between short term, long term, & Grant renovation, PPS will love student population.
·       Please consider teacher teaming if there are needs to plan, learn collaborate across grades.
·       Don't thrash the kids - don't make kids make all new friends for a potentially 1 year solution.
·       Financial plan that has minimal financial impact & is consistent with long term planning.
·       Be considerate of the fact that Rose City Park NH children already dealt with a school closure, then changed to Bev Cleary and now possible changing boundaries? The kids in this NH have been through enough change .  People bought houses over the last few years for Bev. Cleary Grant NH.
·       Consider moving staff and students for one year.  This is a huge disruption and is not a good solution if HS only are one year.  Consider the community of the staff.
·       Consider acquiring covered play structure P.P.R property for lunchroom, classroom, gym, area.
·       Your explanation of the relative "weight" of solution goals leans towards short term solutions which may not sustain goal of reduced class size.
·       Make sure this is not a band-aid.  We should have known this would happen in 2009.
·       Criteria should include any solution should be more than a 1 year fix, or at least be part of a long-term fix.
·       Suggestion for criteria:  What about the impact of each option on students, families of color and or low socio-economic status?
·       A timely decision that allows families to make changes in reaction ie, by end of February.
·       Keeping Siblings together for family logistics, transportation ect.
·       Siblings if splitting up grades to different school for example 2 & 3 to Rose City K-1, 4-8 @ BCS or splitting enrollment area by grade K,1,2 another school .
·       Be sure to consider siblings if a BCS family has another student at school.  Those students should be kept together.  Since moving boundary is an option.
·       The Fernwood building is a middle school building… it was designed to be that.  How can you consider moving 7-8 to a building that is set-up to be an elementary school first…??? Double gym, big art, Science labs.
·       All students, no matter what building they are in, will have access to PE, Music, Arts, certified librarian.
·       Minimize impact on kids who will be affected by Grant rebuild.
·       Consider a middle school for our schools.  (It has worked well for Laurelhurst & Alameda.
·       Criteria: A cafeteria to keep the food allergic kids safe.
·       Consider change to children, families not yet integrated to BCS (eg) incoming K to Hollyrood and transfering 2nd to Fernwood
·       We need to consider the full impact/experience of each grade's k-12 career.  Those disrupted by the Grant remodel, Those who started the K-8 program should be able to complete it, "Ping pong-ing" even distributed.
·       Criteria: Solutions that keep feeder patterns to continue.
·       Please don't ask students (grades) who will be spending 2 years at Marshall to also be displaced next year.
·       Make sure traffic and transportation impacts are considered.  Many people in our NH want to walk and ride bikes to school, options even for small kids.
·       Criteria that should not be considered: After school programs for a one year solution ability for Mad Sci or Young Rembrandts should not be considered.  Also we can do W/O Arts, Music, Spanish & in stand - alone classrooms, library.
·       This should  be done in a sustainable way. i.e., it should not involve parents driving the kids to school.
·       Work to ensure short term decisions and long term decisions are in tandem so that we don't have years of disruption.
·       Note to organizers - Excellent Job!! Format was perfect calm & sanity to the initial stage.  I love the color note cards.
·       It should be considered that 8th graders could handle change more than K-2, so I'm not sure why moving 8th graders is out.  2 & 3rd graders having to move schools 2-3 will be more disrupted.  Consider that people that live within 1 mile chose the houses for location of school.
·       Explosion of enrollment is not affecting Grant HS as one of the considered options (Move 8th grade to Grant) My assumption from this reasoning is that the population bulge is in earlier grades levels. 
·       Add Maintain Community Support.
·       Kids who were moved to a K-8 should be able to finish that program.
·       Want a decision that would be in line with long term decisions.
·       Families need to know that younger siblings will get to attend if they have an older sibling attending.

·       We haven't provided enough details .  How can parents make a decision.

No comments:

Post a Comment