1. Proposed Elementary SchoolBoundary ChangesPresentation of Plan 0
Southwest Elementary SchoolFacility Use and Boundary Task Force
November 3, 2009

2. Introduction
Starting point for FUBTF discussion
Proposal for meeting the four criteria for boundary changes
Capacity
Family Impact
Feeder Pattern
Stability
Initiate discussion on key issues:
Current and projected population changes
Access and proximity to school
Neighborhood issues and concerns
Identify options for FUBTF decisions
2
3. Assumption
Student population projections are from the 2009 demographic report
3
4. Definitions
Population: The number of students who reside in a schools attendance zone
Membership: The number of students who attend a school.
Permanent Capacity: The capacity of a school base on the number of permanent classroom and the size of the core facilities: gym, library, and cafeteria. Does not include portables.
Functional Capacity: The capacity of a school based on the number of permanent and portable classrooms but not including classes used for district-wide uses and Special Education classes and the size of the core facilities.
4
5. Abbreviations
PP:Projected Population
PC:Permanent Capacity
5
6. FUBTF Boundary Criteria
Capacity: Achieve capacity targets that ensure efficient operation of facilities
Family Impact: Affect the fewest students possible
Feeder pattern: Attend to the alignment of feeder patterns, as reasonable, and balanced against other criteria
Stability: Prevent multiple reassignment of students among schools by developing stable, long-term assignment plans
6
7. Process
At the last FUBTF meeting, the FUBTF decided to start the process by creating the attendance zone for the new SWES
The first step will focus on relieving Clayton ES
The presentation of Plan 0 will be provided in three steps.
Create the attendance zone for the new SWES
Provide relief for over-crowded schools
Increase student population at under-capacity schools
7
8. Step One
Create Attendance Zone
for new
Southwest Elementary School
8
9. 2010 PP: 1,262 (143% PC)
2013 PP: 1,553 (176% PC)
9
10. Clayton
10
11. Clayton
Planning Areas:
193E, 195P, 195R, 195A
2010 PP: 781 (89% PC)
2013 PP: 895 (102% PC)
)
11
12. SWES
Planning Areas:
195C, 195D, PA between US Hwy 290 and FM 1826
2010 PP: 481 (68% PC)
2013 PP: 658 (93% PC)
12
13. SWES
Clayton
2010 PP: 481 (68% PC)
2013 PP: 658 (93% PC)
2010 PP: 781 (89% PC)
2013 PP: 895 (102% PC)
)
13
14. Step Two
Provide Relief for
Over-Crowded Schools:
Oak Hill and Mills Elementary Schools
14
15. Relief for Oak Hill ES
Option1: Oak Hill ES and SWES
Option 2: Oak Hill ES and Patton ES
Option 3: Oak Hill ES and Sunset Valley ES
16. Relief for Oak Hill ES
Option1: Oak Hill ES and SWES
Option 2: Oak Hill ES and Patton ES
Option 3: Oak Hill ES and Sunset Valley ES
17. Oak Hill
2010 PP: 1,099 (128% PC)
2013 PP: 1,204 (140% PC)
17
18. Oak Hill
Access to US Hwy 290 from Planning Areas:
149A, 149B, 149D
2009 PP: 21
2013 PP: 32
18
19. Oak Hill
Access to US Hwy 290 from Planning Areas:
149C, and 149E
2009 PP: 37
2013 PP: 37
19
20. Oak Hill
Planning Areas 149F and 149G have no current or projected students
For allSeven planning areas:
2009 PP:58
2013 PP:69
20
21. Oak Hill
Concerns:

Only 58 students would attend the SWES and thenfeed to Small MS.

22. The SWES would open with 542 students (77% of PC) and increase to 727 students by 2013 (103% of PC)21
23. Relief for Oak Hill ES
Option1: Oak Hill ES and SWES
Option 2: Oak Hill ES and Patton ES
Option 3: Oak Hill ES and Sunset Valley ES
24. Oak Hill
Access to US Hwy 290 from Planning Areas:
249B, 249E, 249A, 249D
23
25. Oak Hill
Access to US Hwy 290 from Planning Areas:
249B, 249E, 249A, 249D
2009 Projected Students: 184
2013 Projected Students: 224
24
26. Oak Hill

All 184 students would attend Patton ES and all Patton ES students would feed into Small MS.

27. For 2010, Patton population would increase from 644 students (70% PC) to 836 (90%); but decrease slightly to 808 (87%) by 2013.25
28. Relief for Oak Hill ES
Option1: Oak Hill ES and SWES
Option 2: Oak Hill ES and Patton ES
Option 3: Oak Hill ES and Sunset Valley ES
29. Oak Hill
Access to US Hwy 290 or Mopac from Planning Areas:
49O, 49M
27
30. Oak Hill
Access to US Hwy 290 from Planning Areas:
49O, 49M
2009 Projected Students: 27
2013 Projected Students: 43
28
31. Oak Hill
Concerns:

Only 27 students would attend the Sunset Valley ES and then feed to O.HenryMS.

32. For the 2010 school year, Sunset Valley ES would have 567 students (73% of PC) and increase to 628 by 2013 (81% of PC).29
33. SWES
Oak Hill
2010 PP: 542 (77% PC)
2013 PP: 727 (103% PC)
2010 PP: 816 (95% PC)
2013 PP: 868 (101% PC)
30
34. Sunset Valley
Patton
2010 PP: 567 (73% PC)
2013 PP: 628 (81% PC)
2010 PP: 836 (90% PC)
2013 PP: 808 (101% PC)
31
35. Relief for Mills ES
Mills ES and Kiker ES
36. Mills
Kiker
2010 Population: 1,015 (121% PC)
2013 Population: 990 (118% PC)

2010 Population:657 (81% PC)

37. 2013 population:666 (82% PC)33
38. Mills

The southern portion of planning area 96A only has access to Slaughter Lane and does not connect to adjacent neighborhoods.

39. The southern portion of adjacent planning area 96H2 only has access of Beckett and does not connect to adjacent neighborhoods. 40. 2009 PP: 9634
41. Mills
35
42. Mills
Three contiguous planning areas would be included:
96E, 96G, 96H1
96E has five students and planning areas 96G and 96H1 have no students.
36
43. Existing Mills ES and Kiker ES boundaries
37
44. Mills
Kiker

2010 PP:910 (109%)

45. 2013 PP:885 (106%) 46. 2010 PP:762 (94%) 47. 2013 PP:771 (95%)38
48. Step Three
Increase Student Population of
Under Capacity Schools:
Sunset Valleyand Boone Elementary Schools
39
49. Boone

2010 Population:491 (59%)

50. 2013 population:472 (56%)40
51. Boone
Access to William Cannon Blvd andBrodie Lane :173B and 173A
2009 Projected Students: 27
2013 Projected Students: 43
41
52. Boone
Access to William Cannon Blvd andBrodieLane :173B and 173A
2010 Projected Students: 27
2013 Projected Students: 41
42
53. Boone
Sunset Valley

2010 PP:520 (62%)

54. 2013 PP:513 (61%) 55. 2010 PP:541 (70%) 56. 2013 PP:587 (76%)43
57. Overview
44
58. Existing
Boundaries
45
59. 46
60. Criteria
Capacity: Achieve capacity targets that ensure efficient operation of facilities
Family Impact: Affect the fewest students possible
Feeder pattern: Attend to the alignment of feeder patterns, as reasonable, and balanced against other criteria
Stability: Prevent multiple reassignment of students among schools by developing stable, long-term assignment plans
47
61. Criteria 1: Capacity
48
62. 2010-11 School Year:
Existing vs. Plan 0 Boundaries
49
63. 2013-14 School Year:
Existing vs. Plan 0 Boundaries
50
64. Criteria 1: Capacity
Seven of eight schools remain within 75% to 115% of permanent capacity by the 2013-14 school year
The most crowded school is Mills ES is at 106% but its population begins to slowly decrease
51
65. Criteria 2: Family ImpactCriteria 4: Stability
Changes between Sunset Valley ES and Boone ES
52
66. Criteria 3: Feeder Pattern
Oak Hill to SWES
Oak Hill to Sunset Valley ES
53
67. Questions/Comments
54