BOARD MEETING DATE October 17, 2016 WE EXPECT EXCELLENCE WE INNOVATE WE EMBRACE EQUITY WE COLLABORATE HIGH SCHOOL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATION POLICY ISSUE / SITUATION: Pursuant to the scheduled opening of the new high school at South Cooper Mountain in the Fall of 2017, the District has conducted a process to review and revise the existing high school attendance boundaries through a process defined in School Board Policy JC, SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On May 16, 2016, the Board considered Superintendent Rose’s High School Attendance Boundary Adjustment decision. At that meeting, the Board directed staff to provide additional consideration in applying the criteria and determining adjustments for the proposed boundary plan on two criteria contained in Board Policy JC, specifically, Proximity and Transportation Cost. Additional analysis has been conducted by our staff and additional public comment has been solicited. Based on this analysis and public comment, I am recommending the May 2016 Boundary Plan be modified in the following two areas: Aloha-Huber Park K-8 Area. The May 2016 Boundary Plan split the Aloha-Huber Park K-8 attendance area between Aloha HS, Beaverton HS, and the new high school. I have decided to reunite the AlohaHuber Park K-8 attendance area and assign the area to the Aloha HS attendance area. Findings for this decision are included in the evaluation of Policy JC criteria contained later in this report. Elmonica K-5 Area. The May 2016 Boundary Plan assigned a portion of the Elmonica K-5 attendance area to Aloha HS. I have decided to return the portion north of Walker Road commonly referred to as Waterhouse to Westview HS. Findings for this decision are included in the evaluation of Policy JC criteria attached to this report. On May 16, 2016 the Board approved the Transition Plan recommended by Superintendent Rose. Even though I received additional public comment on the transition plan, I am proposing no further modifications at this time. I believe these two modifications, when combined with the original proposal, effectively balance the criteria outlined in Policy JC and the Board’s objectives for this project. I understand that for some this will be seen as a productive and effective proposal, while others will still be challenged to see the value. The Beaverton School District is a large organization that is charged with the education of over 40,000 students. I take this charge seriously and as we move forward into the transition phase and the years beyond we are committed to providing a high quality education to every child that attends our schools. We live in an economically and socially diverse community and we must continue to strive to eliminate the inequalities as well as the inequities in the district. As Superintendent I will work to ensure that this is the case in Beaverton through continuous improvement to our education system and educational programs. Our high school principals are a dedicated team that is excited about the opportunity that this change presents and I look forward to working with them over the coming year as we implement the transition plan and look beyond 2017. District Goal: WE empower all students to achieve post-high school success. The Beaverton School District recognizes the diversity and worth of all individuals and groups. It is the policy of the Beaverton School District that there will be no discrimination or harassment of individuals or groups based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, national origin, marital status, age, veterans' status, genetic information or disability in any educational programs, activities or employment. RECOMMENDATION: The Superintendent has completed the review of the High School Boundary Advisory Committee’s recommended map and considered additional analysis and public comment on the recommended map. It is recommended the Board review the Superintendent’s recommendation to ensure (1) the set of Board objectives are met; and (2) the Superintendent applied the relevant criteria to the Superintendent's recommended High School Boundary Adjustment map. If the objectives are met and the criteria were considered and reasonably applied, the Board shall approve the attendance plan as per School Board Policy JC, SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS. 2 October  7,  2016             WE EXPECT EXCELLENCE WE INNOVATE     WE EMBRACE EQUITY WE COLLABORATE   Superintendent’s  Attendance  Boundary  Adjustment  Criteria  Evaluation         This  document  provides  a  review  of  the  Board  objectives  and  relevant  criteria  from  Policy  JC   text  regarding  the  proposed  SY  2017-­‐18  high  school  attendance  boundary  map.  This  review  has   included  the  High  School  Boundary  Advisory  Committee’s  recommendations  (herein  referred  to   as  the  HSBAC)  and  report,  as  well  as  additional  consultation  with  the  District’s  Technical  Team,   the  committee  members,  and  review  of  public  comments.         My  tenure  with  the  Beaverton  School  District  started  well  after  the  High  School  Boundary   Adjustment  Process  started.    Since  starting  my  leadership  of  the  District,  I  have  met  with  a  wide   range  of  community  members,  staff,  and  the  advisory  committee.    I  am  impressed  with  the   commitment  and  dedication  that  all  stakeholders  have  demonstrated  to  the  well-­‐being  of  the   District’s  students,  families,  faculty  and  staff.    My  appreciation  and  thanks  are  extended  to  the   HSBAC  for  their  efforts  in  balancing  the  varied  criteria  in  developing  their  recommendations.     Attached  is  a  description  of  each  criteria  found  in  Policy  JC,  along  with  findings  on  how  the  map   reflects  the  committee’s  recommendations  and  my  decision.   The  criteria  were  applied  to  achieve  board-­‐adopted  objectives  as  follows:   •   Relieve  current  and  projected  future  overcrowding  (five  years  out)  targeting     capacity  rates  of  90%;   •   Minimize  transitions  for  students     Regarding  the  relief  of  current  and  future  overcrowding,  the  HSBAC  carefully  balanced   projected  enrollments  to  reduce  overcrowding  in  our  schools  and  create  an  attendance   boundary  with  adequate  enrollment  for  the  new  high  school  at  South  Cooper  Mountain.  The   HSBAC  also  sought  to  minimize  student  transitions  through  careful  consideration  of  the   boundaries,  by  attempting  to  keep  elementary  school  areas  whole  when  considering  changes  to   their  high  school  feeder  patterns,  and  by  recommending  the  grandfathering  of  juniors  and   seniors  in  the  year  the  map  takes  effect.  The  boundary  map  recommendations,  as  developed  by   the  HSBAC  and  modified  by  me,  met  these  stated  objectives.             Index  of  Primary  Criteria  for  Areas  Changing  High  Schools         Proximity  to   School   Neighborhood   Unity   Within  2  miles  to   Beaverton   Split  feeder   Provides  capacity   between  Sunset  &   for  Beaverton   Beaverton   No  longer   crossing  Hwy  26   Outside  of  2.5   miles  to  new  high   school   Provides  capacity   for  new  high   school   No  major  arterial   crossings   Cooper  Mountain   Within  or  just   outside  2.5  miles   to  new  HS   Split  feeder   between   Beaverton  &  new   high  school   Complete  feeder   to  new  high   school   Provides  capacity   for  new  high   school   No  major  arterial   crossings   Elmonica,  south   Within  2-­‐2.5  mile   of  Walker,  east  of   radius  of  Aloha   170th   Split  feeder   between  Aloha  &   Westview   Relieves  capacity   at  Westview   No  longer   crossing  Hwy  26   Errol  Hassell   south  of  Rigert   Within  2.5  miles   to  new  high   school   Split  feeder   between  Aloha   and  new  HS   Provides  capacity   for  new  high   school   No  major  arterial   crossings   Fir  Grove   Within  2  miles  of   Southridge,  1st  or   2nd  closest  HS   Complete  feeder   to  Southridge   Provides  capacity   for  Southridge   Reduction  in   students  w/in   walk  zone  to  HS   Greenway   Within  1.5  miles   of  Southridge   Complete  feeder   to  Southridge   Provides  capacity   for  Southridge   No  major  arterial   crossings   Jacob  Wismer,   south  of  Vance  &   east  of  Skycrest   Within  2.5  miles   to  Sunset   Relieves  capacity   at  Westview     No  major  arterial   crossings   McKay   Within  2  miles  to   Southridge   Split  feeder   between   Westview  &   Sunset   Complete  feeder   to  Southridge   Provides  capacity   for  Southridge   Students  cross   Hwy  217   McKinley,  south   of  Baseline   Within  2  miles  to   Aloha   Area   Barnes,  south  of   Walker;  east  of   Murray  and  south   of  Butner   Chehalem,  west   of  Murray   Split  feeder   Relieves  capacity   between   at  Westview   Westview  &  Aloha   2     Availability  of   Space   Safety   No  longer   crossing  Hwy  26         Proximity  to   School   Outside  2.5  miles   to  any  high  school   Neighborhood   Unity   Complete  feeder   to  Southridge   Availability  of   Space   Provides  capacity   for  Southridge   Nancy  Ryles   Most  within  1.5   miles  to  new  high   school   Complete  feeder   to  new  high   school   Provides  capacity   for  new  high   school   No  major  arterial   crossings   Oak  Hills,  east  of   Bethany   Within  1.5  mile   radius  of  Sunset   Split  feeder  to   Sunset  &   Westview   Relieves  capacity   at  Westview   No  major  arterial   crossings   Ridgewood   Within  2-­‐  2.5   miles  to   Beaverton   Complete  feeder   to  Beaverton   Provides  capacity   for  Beaverton   Some  students   cross  Hwy  217;  no   longer  crossing  26   Scholls  Heights   Closest   elementary  to   new  high  school   Complete  feeder   to  new  high   school   Provides  capacity   for  new  high   school   No  major  arterial   crossings   Sexton  Mountain   Within  2-­‐2.5  mile   Complete  feeder   radius  of  new  high   to  new  high   school   school   Adds  capacity  to   new  high  school   No  major  arterial   crossings   Vose,  south  of   Allen   Within  1.5  and  2   miles  to   Southridge   Split  feeder  to   Beaverton  &   Southridge   Provides  capacity   for  Southridge   No  major  arterial   crossings   West  Tualatin   View   Outside  1.5  miles   to  any  HS,   Beaverton  is  2nd   closest   Within  2  miles  to   Beaverton   Complete  feeder   to  Beaverton   Provides  capacity   at  Beaverton   Students  cross  26     Complete  feeder   to  Beaverton   Provides  capacity   for  Beaverton   No  longer   crossing  Hwy  26   Area   Montclair   William  Walker         Safety   Students  will   cross  Hwy  217   Student  Projection  Data     Through  the  extended  public  comment  period  on  the  May  2016  Boundary  Plan  and  the  “areas   of  consideration”,  I  received  frequent  public  comment  that  the  data  used  by  the  District  was   flawed  and  thus  resulted  in  flawed  student  population  projections.    After  further  review,  I   believe  the  projections  the  District  used  were  reasonable  and  that  the  methodology  used  to   produce  them  was  sound.    The  projections  provided  a  good  metric  for  evaluating  school   utilization  as  we  go  about  balancing  enrollment  across  the  Districts’  high  schools.   3               The  District  calculated  the  student  population  projection  based  on  the  Board’s  objectives  and   on  a  set  of  assumptions,  including  the  following:     •   The  2014-­‐15  school  year  was  the  base  year  for  the  projection;  this  was  used  because   preparation  for  the  boundary  adjustment  process  began  before  the  2015-­‐16  school  year.   •   The  projection  included  all  student  grade  levels,  to  allow  for  the  progression  of  students  from   lower  grades  into  high  school,  but  only  student  counts  for  grades  9-­‐12  were  displayed  on  the   maps  and  tables  for  the  committee.   •   Students  in  specialized  programs,  and  the  classrooms  they  will  occupy,  were  removed  from  the   student  dataset  and  capacity  assumptions  prior  to  the  projection  being  run.   The  projection  used  a  uniform  grade  progression  ratio  to  advance  each  student  cohort  from   year-­‐to-­‐year;  these  rates  were  based  on  prior  progression  trends  in  the  District.  The  software   model  the  District  used  to  develop  the  projection,  created  by  Davis  Demographics  &  Planning,  is   capable  of  calculating  progression  rates  at  a  smaller  geography;  however,  at  the  time  the  HS   projection  was  created,  there  was  an  insufficient  record  of  geocoded  student  data  to  make  use   of  this  feature.    Furthermore,  differences  between  how  Options  students  were  coded  from   year-­‐to-­‐year  made  it  impossible  to  align  the  student  datasets.    As  an  alternative,  as  per   guidance  from  Davis  Demographics,  the  projection  was  calculated  using  progression  rates  from   prior  year  records  for  the  District  as  a  whole.    District  staff  reviewed  these  high  school   projection  assumptions  and  results  with  staff  from  Davis  Demographics,  who  confirmed  that   this  was  a  reasonable  approach,  given  the  data  that  was  available  at  the  time.     Another  feature  of  the  projection  that  warrants  additional  explanation  is  the  treatment  of   Options  school  programs.    Students  in  Options  programs,  including  those  in  middle  school   options  programs  (not  including  SUMMA),  were  also  removed  from  the  dataset  prior  to  the   projection  being  run.  This  was  done  so  the  projection  would  begin  with  a  9-­‐12  student   population  comparable  to  the  actual  comprehensive  high  school  population,  thus  allowing  for   more  accurate  estimation  of  student  cohorts  in  2017,  when  the  new  map  will  go  into  effect.   However,  it  was  not  feasible  to  identify  which  students  in  lower  grades  may  choose  to  pursue   an  Options  program  in  the  future.    As  a  result,  a  number  of  students  who  may  indeed  choose  an   Options  program  will  “filter”  back  into  the  student  population  used  in  the  projection.     The  following  chart  illustrates  the  effect  of  potential  Options  students  filtering  back  into  the   projection.  For  comparison  purposes,  the  projection  used  for  the  high  school  boundary  process   (TT  2020  forecast,  red  line)  is  compared  with  Portland  State  University’s  forecast  (blue  line)  for   the  same  period.  The  green  line  presents  the  actual  comprehensive  high  school  enrollment  up   through  2016.    It  may  be  noted  that  the  projection  used  for  the  High  School  boundary   adjustment  process  is  still  somewhat  lower  than  the  2012  PSU  forecast  but  tracking  almost   exactly  with  actual  student  enrollment.     4                     While  Options  schools  can  be,  and  have  been,  helpful  in  alleviating  overcrowding  at  the  high   school  level,  the  District  does  not  consider  Options  schools  to  be  a  capacity  relief  system.   Options  admissions  are  often  highly  competitive,  and  are  tailored  to  serve  specific  student   interests  and  programs.    Not  every  student  in  the  District  will  gain  admission  to  an  Options   school,  but  every  student  in  the  District  is  entitled  to  attend  their  home  school.  This  should  be  a   valid  consideration  when  adjusting  boundaries  to  relieve  capacity  issues,  as  well  as  opening  a   new  high  school.    It  is  not  possible  to  predict  which  students  in  lower  grades  will  attend  Options   programs  as  they  progress  through  their  educational  career.     As  an  illustration  of  the  effect  of  accounting  for  the  Options  students  in  the  projection,  the   following  is  one  scenario;  others  are,  of  course,  possible.    At  the  macro  scale,  assume  the   current  enrollment  of  the  Options  programs  of  about  1,460  students,  which  is  generally  capped   by  capacity/program  constraints.   Proposed  attendance   boundary Aloha  HS Beaverton  HS South  Cooper  Mtn  HS Southridge  HS Sunset  HS Westview  HS District  Total Total  School   Capacity  (students)                                                        2,176                                                        2,122                                                        2,176                                                        1,850                                                        2,203                                                        2,421                                                  12,948 2020  Projected   2016   resident  students   Comprehensive   within  proposed   HS  Enrollment* attendance  boundary                                                1,899                                                                  2,218                                                  1,773                                                                  1,838   n/a                                                                  1,746                                                  1,598                                                                  1,692                                                  2,228                                                                  2,172                                                  2,576                                                                  2,439                                              10,074                                                            12,106 %  of  Total   Capacity  Used 102% 87% 80% 91% 99% 101% 93% If  Options  evenly   Distributed                                                              243                                                              243                                                              243                                                              243                                                              243                                                              243                                                      1,460 After  Options   Deduction                                  1,975                                  1,595                                  1,503                                  1,449                                  1,929                                  2,196                              10,646 %  of  Total  Capacity   Used  (Options   deducted) 91% 75% 69% 78% 88% 91% 82% *  The  total  high  school  population,  including  Options  and  comprehensive  students  in  2016  w as  11,529   When  deducted  evenly  from  the  2020  student  population  within  each  of  the  six  high  school   attendance  boundaries  in  the  final  Recommended  map,  the  following  results:    Sunset  and   Westview  are  at  about  90%,  and  the  remaining  schools  are  at  or  just  below  80%  of  capacity.     This  provides  a  small  “buffer”  of  space  at  Sunset  and  Westview  for  future  residential  growth.     5               The  following  table  identifies  the  actual  Options  enrollment  from  each  of  the  comprehensive   high  schools,  as  observed  over  time.    As  one  can  see,  the  impact  to  capacity  is  different,   although  not  significantly,  at  each  high  school.    Aloha  HS  has  the  highest  Options  enrollment   with  354  students  from  the  Aloha  attendance  area  attending  an  options  program.       Proposed  attendance   Total  School   boundary Capacity  (students) Aloha  HS                                                        2,176 Beaverton  HS                                                        2,122 South  Cooper  Mtn  HS**                                                        2,176 Southridge  HS                                                        1,850 Sunset  HS                                                        2,203 Westview  HS                                                        2,421 District  Total                                                  12,948 2020  Projected   2016   resident  students   Comprehensive   within  proposed   HS  Enrollment* attendance  boundary                                                1,899                                                                  2,218                                                  1,773                                                                  1,838   n/a                                                                  1,746                                                  1,598                                                                  1,692                                                  2,228                                                                  2,172                                                  2,576                                                                  2,439                                              10,074                                                            12,106 %  of  Total   Capacity  Used 102% 87% 80% 91% 99% 101% 93% If  Options   distributed  based   on  historic  average                                                              354                                                              268                                                              243                                                              146                                                              221                                                              226                                                      1,460 After  Options   Deduction                                  1,864                                  1,570                                  1,503                                  1,546                                  1,951                                  2,213                              10,646 %  of  Total  Capacity   Used  (Options   deducted) 86% 74% 69% 84% 89% 91% 82% *  The  total  high  school  population,  including  Options  and  comprehensive  students  in  2016  w as  11,529 **Assumes  the  district  average  of  approximately  17%     Regardless  of  the  enrollment  rates  in  the  Options  Schools  from  the  various  high  school   attendance  areas,  there  is  a  reduction  in  the  enrollment  in  the  comprehensive  high  schools  as  a   result.    As  previously  noted,  it  is  not  possible  to  predict  which  future  students  will  attend   Options  programs  nor  is  it  possible  to  predict  what  the  Options  programs  will  consist  of  in  2020.     Nevertheless,  the  impact  of  Options  enrollment  on  the  comprehensive  high  schools  will  be  the   lowering  of  student  population  at  the  comprehensive  high  schools.    This  reduction  will  assist  in   satisfying  the  Board  objective  of  having  the  high  schools  at  a  90%  capacity.       It  should  also  be  noted  that  members  of  the  HSBAC  and  the  public  have  asked  whether  the   projection  used  was  sufficiently  large  enough  to  account  for  future  residential  development  in   the  District.    Some  HSBAC  members  asked  why  the  time  frame  was  only  five  years,  and  not  ten,   which  reflected  a  desire  to  draw  high  school  boundaries  that  would  be  durable  for  a  long  period   of  time.     For  these  reasons,  and  because  the  projection  incorporated  only  those  known  major  residential   development  projects  (not  additional  zoned  capacity,  which  is  substantial),  it  was  reasoned  that   the  Options  students  filtering  back  into  the  projection  would  provide  an  additional  capacity   “buffer”  in  the  boundary  adjustment  process.           6               Board  Policy  JC  Criteria:    Availability  of  Space  &  Economical  Use  of  Buildings1     These  criteria  stem  from  the  District’s  commitment  to  providing  a  safe  and  enriching  learning   environment  for  all  students.     This  boundary  adjustment  process  was  initiated  to  create  an  attendance  boundary  for  the  new   high  school  at  South  Cooper  Mountain,  which  is  part  of  the  District’s  long-­‐range  facility  plan  to   both  serve  new  growth  areas  and  alleviate  overcrowding.    The  factors  for  consideration  related   to  availability  of  space  include  the  following:   •   Projected  capacity  of  school  given  current  permanent  and  portable  capacity;   •   “Core  capacity”  for  projected  enrollment;  gymnasium  and/or  other  multipurpose  or  activity   space;  library  and  other  multimedia  space;  cafeteria  space;  other  common  areas;   •   Projected  enrollment  generated  from  current  and  projected  residential  development  of   neighborhoods  proposed  for  inclusion  within  schools’  attendance  boundaries.     It  is  important  to  note  that  this  first  criteria  set  directly  aligns  with  the  board  adopted  goal  for   the  process  of  targeting  capacity  rates  for  the  high  schools  at  90%.    During  the  public  comment   phases  of  this  process  we  heard  from  some  in  the  community  that  would  be  “satisfied”  with   capacity  rates  in  excess  of  this,  even  in  excess  of  100%  utilization.    In  adopting  a  90%  utilization   rate  the  board  has  recognized,  and  I  agree,  that  a  full  capacity,  or  even  over-­‐capacity,  school   building  does  not  create  the  best  learning  environment  for  students.    This  level  of  utilization   creates  a  logistical  challenge  for  staff  and  students  during  passing  and  lunch  times  and  greatly   diminishes  the  flexibility  for  building  leaders  to  be  able  to  meet  the  individualized  needs  of   students  through  additional  targeted  programming  and  services.    I  am  confident  that  our   approach  to  the  projections,  capacity  measurement,  and  options  enrollment  will  give  our  high   schools  that  exceed  the  adopted  goal,  a  buffer  from  over-­‐utilization.     Approach   The  District  reviewed  and  revised  capacity  estimates  for  each  of  the  five  existing  high  schools,   and  the  new  high  school  at  South  Cooper  Mountain.  The  review  included  an  inventory  of   classroom  space,  including  those  in  portable  units.2    Initially,  the  District  hoped  to  be  able  to   assume  the  removal  of  some  or  all  of  the  portable  classrooms  at  Westview  HS  and  Aloha  HS.   However,  when  capacity  was  compared  with  the  projected  high  school  population  in  2020,  it   was  clear  that  for  the  purposes  of  the  boundary  adjustment  process,  the  portable  classrooms   should  remain  in  the  capacity  assumptions.    Table  1,  below,  shows  the  permanent  and  portable   capacity,  and  estimated  student  population  in  2020,  under  the  proposed  boundary  map.                                                                                                                  A  separate  District  criterion,  economical  use  of  buildings,  is  related  to  this  criterion,  and  is  addressed  in  this  section.   1 2  Classroom  space  for  English  Language  Learners  and  Specialized  Programs  were  deducted  from  the  high  school  capacity  figures  for  purposes  of  the   boundary  adjustment  process.   7         Table  1:    High  School  Capacity  and  Estimated  Student  Population     Proposed  attendance  boundary Aloha  HS Beaverton  HS South  Cooper  Mtn  HS Southridge  HS Sunset  HS Westview  HS District  Total         Total  School   Capacity   (students)                                          2,040                                          2,122                                          2,176                                          1,850                                          2,203                                          1,986                                    12,377 Capacity   Provided  by   Portables                                          136                                            -­‐                                            -­‐                                            -­‐                                            -­‐                                          435                                          571 Permanent  +   Portable   Projected   Portable   Capacity  as  %  of   Resident   Capacity Total Students  2020                                          2,176 6%                                              2,218                                            2,122 0%                                              1,838                                            2,176 0%                                              1,746                                            1,850 0%                                              1,692                                            2,203 0%                                              2,172                                            2,421 18%                                              2,439                                      12,948 4%                                      12,106   2020  Utilization   with  Portables 102% 87% 80% 91% 99% 101% 93% 2020  Utilization   without   Portables 109% no  change no  change no  change no  change The  District  has  experienced  significant  population  and  student  growth,  most  notably,  in  the   northern  portion  of  the  District.  This  has  led  to  overcrowding  at  Westview  and  Sunset  High   Schools.    The  District  will  experience  similar  growth  in  the  southern  area,  where  urban  growth   boundary  expansion  areas  are  beginning  to  see  significant  development  applications  and   construction.     The  proposed  boundary  map  was  drawn  to  create  a  new  attendance  boundary  for  the  new  high   school  at  South  Cooper  Mountain,  and  to  adjust  future  enrollment  patterns  at  the  remaining   five  high  schools  to  alleviate  projected  overcrowding.    At  the  same  time,  the  proposal  attempts   to  balance  other  criteria,  including  proximity  to  school,  neighborhood  unity  and  transportation   impacts.       The  proposed  boundary  map  balances  projected  enrollment  across  all  six  high  schools,  such   that  none  are  significantly  over  capacity,  or  significantly  under  capacity  by  2020.  However,  it   must  be  noted  that  the  proposal  does  not  result  in  a  perfectly  even  balancing  of  capacity   utilization.    The  Boundary  Advisory  Committee  recommended  improving  some  of  the  effects  of   the  increased  share  of  economically  disadvantaged  students  at  Aloha,  Beaverton  and   Southridge  high  schools  under  the  new  map  by  targeting  a  lower  projected  enrollment  at  those   schools.    However,  due  to  additional  analysis  on  proximity  and  transpiration  costs  I  have   modified  the  HSBAC’s  recommended  plan,  which  will  increase  the  projected  enrollment  while   not  greatly  increasing  the  share  of  economically  disadvantaged  students  at  Aloha  HS.    The   ability  to  eliminate  the  split  of  the  Aloha-­‐Huber  Park  student  body  and  keep  them  together  for   their  academic  career  offsets  other  potential  impacts.    Sunset  and  Westview  High  Schools   retained  some  additional  students  and  will  be  approaching  the  utilization  of  total  capacity  in   2020.  The  new  high  school  at  South  Cooper  Mountain  is  projected  to  be  close  to  a  80%   utilization  of  capacity  in  2020,  thus  providing  capacity  for  additional  growth  in  the  urban  growth   boundary  expansion  areas.   Conclusion   It  is  my  conclusion  that  the  Boundary  Advisory  Committee’s  approach  and  my  modifications   result  in  a  map  that  satisfies  the  Availability  of  Space  and  Economical  Use  of  Buildings  criteria.   8       123% 98%           Board  Policy  JC  Criteria:    Neighborhood  Unity  &  Feeder  School  Alignment       These  criteria  stem  from  the  District’s  commitment  to  supporting  neighborhood  schools,  which   serve  as  an  important  part  of  community  identity.     Defining  neighborhoods  is  not  a  straightforward  exercise,  so  the  District  uses  some  general   guidelines  for  neighborhood  unity  when  adjusting  attendance  boundaries.    The  factors  for   consideration  include  the  following:     •   Residential  areas  that  are  contained  within  major  arterial  and  collector  roads/streets  or  within   major  natural  features  (wetlands,  streams,  green  spaces,  topographic  variations,  etc.);   •   Major  access  points  to  neighborhoods;   •   Neighborhoods  with  commonly  shared  facilities:  swimming  pool,  playgrounds,  parks,  etc.;   •   Using  backyard  property  line  divisions,  rather  than  opposite  sides  of  small  neighborhood   streets;  and     •   Avoiding  the  division  of  neighborhoods  with  strong  historical  identities.   Approach   Elementary  school  boundaries  were  considered  a  primary  unit  of  defining  a  neighborhood  or   set  of  neighborhoods.  The  proposed  high  school  boundaries  represent  the  intent  of  keeping   elementary  school  boundaries  whole,  even  if  they  have  been  shifted  to  a  different  high  school   attendance  area.    However,  due  to  various  criteria,  such  as  the  availability  of  space  or  proximity   to  school,  some  elementary  school  boundaries  were  divided.    In  these  cases,  the  divisions  were   primarily  along  major  arterials  or  highways,  or  natural  features.     On  balance,  the  Superintendent’s  revised  proposal,  when  compared  with  the  current  high   school  boundaries  results  in  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  split  elementary  school-­‐to-­‐high  school   feeder  patterns,  from  nine  to  eight.  The  map  labeled  Attached  is  a  map  that  shows  feeder   patterns  for  elementary  and  middle  schools  under  the  proposed  map.  As  shown  in  Figure  1,  a   number  of  previously  split  elementary  schools  will  be  wholly  within  one  high  school  attendance   boundary,  but  some  previously  unsplit  elementary  schools  will  now  feed  into  more  than  one   high  school.     Figure  1:    Split  Elementary  School  Feeders  under  current  and  proposed  high  school  boundaries   Elementary  School Barnes Chehalem Elmonica Errol  Hassell Jacob  Wismer McKinley Oak  Hills Vose Current  ES  to  HS  Feeder  pattern 70%  Sunset  /  30%  Westview 36%  Beaverton  /  64%  Aloha 100%  Westview 100%  Aloha 34%  Sunset  /  66%  Westview 100%  Westview 100%  Westview 100%  Beaverton Aloha South   Beaverton Cooper  Mtn. Southridge Sunset 63% 37% 42% 58% 43% 92% Westview 57% 8% 75% 10% 40% 38% 62%                                                                                                               3  A  separate  District  criterion,  feeder  school  alignment,  is  related  to  this  criterion,  and  is  addressed  in  this  section.     9     3 25% 90% 60% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%                 The  following  elementary  schools,  which  currently  have  split  feeder  patterns  to  high  school,  will   feed  to  one  high  school:  Findley  ES,  Greenway  ES,  McKay  ES,  Raleigh  Park  ES,  and  Sexton   Mountain  ES.     During  the  period  of  additional  public  comment  on  the  May  2016  Boundary  Plan,  I  received   testimony  from  several  neighborhoods  not  wanting  to  be  split  from  their  self-­‐identified   neighborhood  or  community.    This  concern  was  especially  important  to  the  Aloha-­‐Huber  Park,   Elmonica,  Oak  Hills,  and  West  TV  attendance  areas.    I  have  decided  to  return  the  Aloha-­‐Huber   Park  area  to  Aloha  HS  and  a  portion  of  Elmonica  to  Westview  HS.    The  reasons  for  these   changes  are  based  on  proximity  and  transportation  cost  considerations.    The  remainder  of  the   Elmonica  area,  Oak  Hills,  and  West  TV  areas  were  not  modified  in  their  designated  attendance   boundaries.    While  the  testimony  I  received  was  compelling  about  neighborhood  unity  and   identity,  a  more  compelling  factor  in  my  decision  was  the  existing  and  projected  capacity   concerns  for  Sunset  and  Westview  high  schools  as  well  as  the  cascading  loss  of  enrollment  at   the  southern  high  schools.     It  should  be  noted  that  the  middle  school  boundaries,  as  they  currently  exist,  proved  a  very   difficult  challenge  for  the  Boundary  Advisory  Committee  in  drawing  this  map.  The  proposed   map  will  result  in  a  higher  number  of  split  feeder  patterns  from  middle  to  high  school  than   currently  exist.  With  the  scheduled  opening  of  a  new  middle  school  in  the  Timberland  area  in   the  fall  of  2020,  the  District  will  also  adjust  middle  school  boundaries  closer  to  the  time  it   opens.  That  process  will  represent  an  opportunity  to  better  align  middle  school  feeder  patterns.     Conclusion   It  is  my  conclusion  that  the  Boundary  Advisory  Committee’s  approach  and  my  modifications   result  in  a  map  that  satisfies  the  Neighborhood  Unity  and  Feeder  School  Alignment  criteria.     10         Board  Policy  JC  Criterion:    Proximity  to  School         This  criterion  recognizes  the  role  of  a  school  as  a  gathering  place  in  a  neighborhood  and  the   desirability  of  enabling  students  to  walk  to  school.    The  factors  for  consideration  include  the   following:   •   Proximity  to  school,  with  priority  to  children  who  can  access  safe  walk  routes;   •   Attendance  boundary  perimeters  of  relative  equal  distance  from  a  school;   •   Neighborhood  school  concept.     Approach   Due  to  the  extent  of  the  high  school  boundary  geographies,  only  a  small  proportion  of  the  area   around  each  school  can  serve  as  a  Non-­‐Transportation  Zone  (NTZ).    Attachment  C,  shows  the   proposed  high  school  boundaries,  with  a  1.5  mile  as-­‐the-­‐crow-­‐flies  buffer,  and  the  proposed   NTZ  areas  (i.e.  areas  from  which  students  can  walk  to  school).  The  number  of  students  residing   in  walk  zones  will  increase  to  38%  under  the  proposed  map.    Southridge  and  Sunset  will  see  an   increased  number  of  students  residing  in  the  walk  zone;  the  number  at  Aloha  and  Beaverton   remains  approximately  the  same.  The  addition  of  a  6th  high  school  also  adds  another  walk  zone;   students  living  near  the  new  high  school  at  South  Cooper  Mountain  who  would  have  otherwise   been  bused  to  Southridge  will  be  able  to  walk  to  school.     The  need  to  accommodate  the  new  high  school  at  South  Cooper  Mountain,  which  is  at  the   extreme  southwestern  edge  of  the  district  (so  that  it  must  draw,  generally,  from  the   northeasterly  direction),  did  result  in  some  elongated  attendance  boundary  segments.    These   segments  are  generally  defined  by  arterials  that  make  for  natural  barriers  and  transportation   corridors.    One  elongated  boundary  segment  involves  the  Elmonica  attendance  area.    The   Waterhouse  neighborhood  north  of  Walker  Road  is  closer  to  Sunset  HS  and  Westview  HS  than   Aloha  HS  due  to  its  elongated  configuration.    Given  the  proximity  of  this  neighborhood  to   Westview  HS  and  that  the  area  is  currently  located  within  the  Westview  HS  attendance  area,  I   have  adjusted  the  map  to  include  the  Waterhouse  neighborhood  north  of  Walker  Road  in  the   Westview  HS  attendance  boundary.         I  have  also  found  that  the  Aloha-­‐Huber  Park  area  located  between  Farmington  Road  and   Tualatin  Valley  Highway  should  return  to  the  Aloha  HS  attendance  area  rather  than  being  split   between  Beaverton  HS  and  the  South  Cooper  Mountain  HS.    In  the  case  of  the  Aloha-­‐Huber   Park  area  being  designated  to  attend  the  new  South  Cooper  Mountain  HS,  this  would  have   resulted  in  students  travelling  to  the  fifth  or  sixth  closest  school.     In  many  cases,  using  major  arterial  roads  as  boundary  edges  creates  transportation  corridors   that  improve  route  efficiencies.    These  efficiencies  help  minimize  the  number  of  buses  required   to  service  an  area  and  take  advantage  of  divisions  in  population  centers.    These  boundaries  also   improve  student  safety  by  eliminating  the  need  to  cross  major  arterial  roads.    .         11                   As  with  the  Neighborhood  Unity  criterion,  the  proposed  map  does  reflect  some  trade-­‐offs  with   other  criteria.    For  example,  in  some  instances  it  was  necessary  to  address  the  availability  of   space  criterion.  In  those  cases,  major  arterials  or  streets  were  used  as  dividing  lines,  so  as  to   minimize  the  disruption  to  existing  communities.       Conclusion   It  is  my  conclusion  that  the  Boundary  Advisory  Committee’s  approach  and  my  modifications   result  in  a  map  that  satisfies  the  Proximity  to  School  criterion.     12                 Board  Policy  JC  Criterion:    Safety     This  criterion  addresses  the  need  to  create  safe  conditions  for  students  traveling  to  and  from,   and  at  school.    The  factors  for  consideration  include  the  following:   •   The  availability  of  safe  walk  routes:  availability  of  sidewalks;  width  of  road  and   shoulders;  volume  of  traffic;  posted  and/or  measured  vehicle  speed;  other  speed   mitigation  devices  (traffic  signals,  speed  bump,  etc.);  pedestrian  crosswalks;  posted   crossing  guards;     •   Avoid  crossing  main  arterial  roads  and  streets,  and  other  potential  safety  hazards;  and     •   Ensuring  safe  learning  environments  by  relieving  overcrowding.   Approach   This  criterion  is  related  in  many  ways  to  Proximity  to  School,  especially  in  regard  to  the  safe   transportation  of  students  to  and  from  school.  However,  it  also  relates  to  the  safe  operation  of   a  school  facility  itself,  including  student  overcrowding.       Regarding  the  transportation  aspect  of  safety,  as  noted  in  other  sections,  the  proposed  map   uses  arterials  and  major  streets  as  boundary  edges.  Walking  distances  are  determined  by   Oregon  statute.    However,  a  Traffic  Safety  Team  represented  by  members  from  BSD   Transportation,  Public  Safety,  Risk  Management,  Safe  Routes  to  School,  and  city  &  county   transportation  officials  collaborate  on  an  ongoing  basis  to  evaluate  existing  and  future   infrastructure  looking  for  paths  which  minimize  pedestrian  hazards.    When  standards  for   pedestrian  safety  are  not  met,  the  District  provides  transportation  services.     The  number  of  motorists  transporting  students  to  school  using  city  and  county  roads  relative  to   existing  traffic  is  very  small.    Changes  in  traffic  patterns  due  to  high  school  boundary   adjustments  would  have  minimal  effect  on  these  traffic  patterns.    The  District  continues  to   recommend  school  bus  use  as  the  safest  method  of  transportation.    Studies  confirm  students   are  at  least  8  times  safer  in  a  school  bus  than  when  riding  in  a  personal  vehicle.  Over  25  million   students  ride  school  buses  each  day  in  the  U.S.  without  any  serious  accident.  Oregon  school  bus   drivers  are  highly  trained  and  subject  to  the  strictest  standards  and  regulations  of  any  driver  in   the  state.     The  proposed  map  achieves  the  objective  of  alleviating  overcrowding  at  the  District’s  high   schools,  which  will  also  contribute  to  a  safe  and  harmonious  environment  for  learning.     Conclusion   It  is  my  conclusion  that  the  Boundary  Advisory  Committee’s  approach  and  my  modifications   result  in  a  map  that  satisfies  the  Safety  criterion.     13             Board  Policy  JC  Criterion:    Transportation  Cost       This  criterion  addresses  the  need  to  maximize  the  efficient  use  of  limited  transportation  funds.     The  factors  for  consideration  include  the  following:   •   Consider  relative  financial  cost  to  the  District  when  determining  which  school  a  “bused   community”  will  be  assigned;   •   Consider  rider  time  when  determining  which  school  a  “bused  community”  will  be   assigned;   •   Consider  neighborhood  proximity  to  common  bus  routes;   •   Avoid  non-­‐contiguous  attendance  boundaries.     Approach   District  Transportation  staff  provided  information  to  the  committee  during  the  boundary   process  related  to  the  effects  of  various  boundary  proposals  on  transportation.    As  a  result  of   the  proposed  map,  the  overall  number  of  bus  routes  will  rise  due  to  the  addition  of  the  new   high  school.    Routes  serving  Westview  and  Beaverton  are  expected  to  remain  constant  while   Sunset  and  Southridge  should  decline.    Aloha  routes  will  increase  slightly,  with  the  bulk  of  the   new  routes  added  at  the  new  high  school  at  South  Cooper  Mountain.     The  maximum  ride  time  goal  for  students  is  45  minutes.    Ride  times  incorporating  the  boundary   adjustments  are  expected  to  remain  within  this  timeframe.  Boundary  adjustments  are  not   expected  to  affect  the  role  of  neighborhood  continuity  as  a  parameter  during  the  design  phase   of  bus  routes.  Actual  route  design  for  the  17/18  year  will  begin  during  the  spring  of  2017.     Public  comment  was  provided  concerning  the  length  of  time  students  will  be  on  buses  and  the   cost  associated  with  busing  students.    The  public  comment  received  on  this  topic  was   predominantly  from  Elmonica  and  West  TV  community  members.    Transportation  staff  has   conducted  an  analysis  of  the  proposed  transportation  costs  and  length  of  commute  for  many   neighborhoods,  including  Waterhouse  and  West  TV.    The  analysis  used  2015/2016   transportation  data  and  included  total  route  travel  time,  mileage,  and  ridership  counts.    Data   specific  to  each  of  these  areas  and  several  others  is  contained  in  the  attachments.     Another  unique  bus  route  will  be  for  the  Southridge  HS  area  and  involve  the  Montclair   neighborhood.    The  HSBAC  recommended  creating  one  non-­‐contiguous  boundary,  by  including   the  Montclair  elementary  school  boundary  within  the  Southridge  boundary  area.    The   committee  stated  that  the  transportation  impacts  were  outweighed  by  the  community’s  desire   to  maintain,  where  possible,  whole  elementary  school  boundaries.   The  data  shows  that  while  bus  travel  times  and  mileages  will  fluctuate  versus  historical  levels,   the  overall  effects  of  future  route  changes  on  time  and  distance  are  minimal  when  compared  to   all  routes  servicing  the  affected  schools.    I  understand  that  some  students  may  now  have  a   longer  bus  or  travel  route  to  school  than  previous  and  the  district  transportation  staff  will   continuously  look  to  find  effective  solutions  to  help  off-­‐set  the  impact  of  this  increase.       14                   Conclusion   It  is  my  conclusion  that  the  Boundary  Advisory  Committee’s  approach  and  my  modifications   result  in  a  map  that  satisfies  the  Transportation  Cost  criterion.     15           Board  Policy  JC  Criterion:    Student  Body  Composition         This  criterion  addresses  our  responsibility  for  developing  well-­‐rounded  students  who  are   cognizant  of  the  diversity  of  experiences  and  backgrounds  in  the  Beaverton  community  and   beyond.   The  factors  for  consideration  include  the  following:   •   Consider  balance  between  schools  of  ethnic,  socioeconomic,  and  language  differences  and   other  elements  of  diversity;   •   Attempt  to  provide  for  capacity  of  special  program  siting.     Approach   The  proposed  map  seeks  to  create  socio-­‐economic  equity  between  the  six  high  schools,  to   limited  success  due  to  geographic  and  demographic  imbalances  in  the  District  as  a  whole.   Figure  2,  below  shows  the  distribution  of  students  eligible  for  free  and  reduced  lunch  today   (top  graph)  and  under  the  proposed  boundary  map.  The  figures  presented  include  the  K-­‐12   student  population,  based  on  preliminary  enrollment  figures  for  the  2016-­‐17  school  year.  The   K-­‐12  population  is  used,  rather  than  the  current  9-­‐12  population,  to  better  represent  the   present  and  future  composition  of  the  new  attendance  boundary  population.     Figure  2a:    Free  &  Reduced  Student  Population  Profile  of  Current  High  School  Boundaries     (2016-­‐17,  K-­‐12  population)         16             Figure  2b:    Free  &  Reduced  Student  Population  Profile  of  Proposed  High  School  Boundaries     (2016-­‐17,  K-­‐12  population)         The  Boundary  Advisory  Committee  recommended  that  schools  with  higher  shares  of   economically  disadvantaged  students  be  targeted  for  a  lower  enrollment  rate  relative  to   capacity  and  that  the  District  consider  additional  resources.    The  proposed  map  has  no  effect   on  the  provision  of  specialized  program  siting.     Conclusion   It  is  my  conclusion  that  the  Boundary  Advisory  Committee’s  approach  and  my  modifications   result  in  a  map  that  satisfies  the  Student  Body  Composition  criterion.       Attachments       A.   Superintendent’s  Recommended  High  School  Boundary  Map.   B.   High  School  Boundary  Advisory  Committee’s  report  dated  March  2016.   C.   High  School  Feeder  Pattern  Map  for  Recommended  High  School  Boundaries.   D.   Walk  Zones  Map  for  Recommended  High  School  Boundaries.   E.   Transportation  Impact  Evaluation  of  the  Recommended  High  School  Boundary  Map     Additional  information  and  analysis  used  to  evaluate  criteria  and  make  this  recommendation   can  be  found  on  Beaverton  School  District’s  High  School  Boundary  Adjustment  website   (https://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/depts/facilities/boundary/Pages/High-­‐School-­‐Adjustment-­‐ Process.aspx).     17     Notano?icia'mstrictmap Beaverton School District For information and analysis Superintendent's Recommended SY 2017-18 High School SCHOOL DISTRICT purposes only October 5, 2015 Attendance Boundary Map Legend This map depicts the proposed SY201 7-18 High SchooiAttendance Boundaries, as I hs I recommended by the Superintendent. lg 005 I Middle Schools I Elementary Schools ALOHA HS BEAVERTON HS - SOUTH COOPER MTN HS SOUTHRIDGE HS Fins? - ?v .4 IG Kinnaman I WEB Southridge HS I ERINE Cooper HS I SCHOLLS FERRY 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA Superintendent's Boundary Adjustment Criteria Evaluation Attachment A   BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT  HIGH SCHOOL BOUNDARY  ADJUSTMENT ADVISORY  COMMITTEE  REPORT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT  March 2016  Withycombe Scotten & Associates │Portland, Oregon       Superintendent's Boundary Adjustment Criteria Evaluation Attachment B     High School Boundary Adjustment Advisory Process  Committee Members   Gary Plasker  Courtney Severson  Ken Yarnell/Vicki Lukich  Joth Ricci  Felita Singleton  Anne Erwin  Joanna Wilbur  Tori Pontrelli  Todd Corsetti  Stuart Hall  Kevin O’Donnell  John Huelskamp  Kathi Kister  Giselle Escobar  Jon Franco  Technical Team Members   Ron Porterfield  Carl Mead  Dick Steinbrugge  Mike Chamberlain  Maureen Wheeler  Robert McCracken  Craig Beaver  Debby Wohlmut      Table of Contents  Boundary Adjustment Committee Process  Committee Charge  1  Committee Membership and Support   1  Committee Meetings and Community Engagement  2  Boundary Adjustment Criteria  2  Working Agreements and Decision Making  3  Foundational Information  4  Springboard Proposal  4  Boundary Adjustment Committee Recommendations   Boundary Adjustment Recommendations  5  Transition Recommendations   7    Meeting minutes may be found at:  https://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/depts/facilities/boundary/Pages/HIGHSCHOOLADJUSTMENT BOUNDARYADVISORYCOMMITTEE.aspx                Boundary Adjustment Committee Process  Committee Charge  The High School Boundary Adjustment Advisory Committee was formed in October 2015,  charged with recommending new high school boundaries to take effect in September 2017,  when the Beaverton School District’s sixth high school will open.  In his welcome to committee  members, Superintendent Jeff Rose expressed appreciation for their service and emphasized  the importance of collaboration and of considering the interests of the district as a whole.  Thank you for your willingness to take on this vital task, which is so important to our  community.  We are fortunate that our community supported the bond that will enable  us to create additional school capacity, but that opportunity presents a challenge.  And  that is the need to make boundary decisions that support all Beaverton schools.  We are  guided by doing what’s best for students, and creating adequate capacity is doing the  right thing…  We have asked ourselves: are we a school district or a district of schools?   Our commitment is to being a school district.  Each of our schools is unique of course,  and we are committed to supporting that; but we are committed to being a team — the  Beaverton School District team.    In addition to recommending adjusted high school attendance areas, the committee was  charged with recommending ways to ease the transition for students and families affected by  boundary changes.  Committee Membership and Support  The 15 committee members included the principal and two parents from each of the district’s  five existing high schools: Aloha High School, Beaverton High School, Southridge High School,  Sunset High School, and Westview High School.    They were supported in their work by facilitator Dick Withycombe and by a district technical  team whose members brought together the array of information and expertise needed to  complete a successful boundary adjustment process.  They included: Deputy Superintendent  for Operations and Support Services Ron Porterfield, Deputy Superintendent for Teaching and  Learning Carl Mead, Executive Administrator for Facilities Dick Steinbrugge, Executive  Administrator for High Schools and Option Schools Mike Chamberlain, Public Communications  Officer Maureen Wheeler, Facilities Planning Coordinator Robert McCracken, Administrator  for Transportation Craig Beaver, and Administrative Assistant Debby Wohlmut.  The technical  team presented foundational data and responded to the committee requests for additional  information, provided technical support, managed communications, and handled logistical  tasks.      Committee Meetings and Community Engagement  The High School Boundary Adjustment Advisory Committee met nine times between October  15 and March 17.  In addition, they conducted two public meetings for the purpose of sharing  their emerging recommendations and gathering community input.  All committee meetings were held at the district office and open to the public.  Informational  materials and comment forms were provided for the audience.  Once adopted by the  committee, meeting minutes were posted on the district website.  On January 21, the committee conducted a public preview at Five Oaks Middle School; 525  people participated in an informal event that allowed them to view maps of the committee’s  current thinking about boundary changes and to talk directly with committee members about  their emerging recommendations.  Committee members shared these conversations at their  next meeting, as they resumed their deliberations.  Two meetings later, the committee conducted a formal public hearing to present their  preliminary boundary recommendations and to invite community comment.  Approximately  700 people attended this event at Southridge High School on February 16; and 76 of them  offered oral comments.  Again, committee members brought back what they had heard and  applied it to their evolving boundary map.  Throughout the boundary process, the district received written comments in the form of  comment forms at meetings and public events and, in greater volume, emails submitted to a  dedicated email address on the district website.  Over the course of the six‐month process, the  committee received more than 2,000 emails, which were compiled and emailed to all  committee members each week.    The district established a boundary adjustment webpage, which included FAQs, the meeting  schedule, meeting minutes, and meeting materials as well as the comment option.  Public  inquiries and media requests were directed to the public communications office, which used all  existing communications channels to provide information about the process and to make it as  transparent as possible (e.g., district and school newsletters, school board updates, internal  staff updates).    Boundary Adjustment Criteria   The High School Boundary Adjustment Advisory Committee applied criteria provided by the  Board of Education as they identified and evaluated potential boundary changes.  The first  level of criteria was established by the board specifically for this process.  In June 2015, the  board adopted two objectives for the high school boundary adjustment process: to relieve  current and projected future overcrowding and to minimize transition for students.    2      In addition, Board Policy JC identifies two sets of criteria for consideration in making boundary  changes.  The “primary criteria” include: availability of space, proximity to school, safety, and  neighborhood unity.  The “additional criteria” are transportation costs, student‐body  composition, staffing patterns, feeder‐school alignment, and efficient and economical  utilization of buildings.  The technical team provided examples of ways of applying these  criteria to help committee members operationalize these concepts.     The board‐policy criteria were not ranked, and conflicts between them were unavoidable in the  context of specific boundary changes.  The committee necessarily resolved these conflicts on a  case‐by‐case basis, seeking the best solution for the students who would be affected.     At their last meeting, committee members reflected on the experience of applying these  criteria in their work and submitted written feedback that will inform future boundary  adjustment processes.    Working Agreements and Decision Making  At their first meeting, committee members discussed how they felt they should work together.   On October 29, they adopted a set of working agreements, committing themselves to:   operate in dialog mode, which means listening with an open mind;   maintain a polite, respectful dialog in which everyone feels safe to contribute;   listen, consider what we heard — and then speak;   act with good intentions and assume good intentions in others;   resist taking things personally, understanding we will sometimes disagree;   contribute knowledge of our own school communities to a collective search for a  solution that treats all students and all school communities fairly;   respect that this is a process and give it time to work through;   keep the work here, and keep it collaborative — no meetings outside the committee  room, no development of independent proposals;    avoid extending assurances, knowing our work will evolve until the very end; and   check with schools that may be impacted before offering a proposal for the  consideration of the committee as a whole.  Only the 15 school‐based committee members were empowered to make decisions.  Technical  team members did not sit at the committee table and did not participate in decision making.   On December 17, the committee agreed their decisions would require the support of two‐ thirds plus one of the members voting (11, if all were present); that decisions would be  reconsidered only at the request of someone who had been on the prevailing side; and that, to  avoid the possibility of a whole school team being outvoted, they would test to make sure at  least one member of every school team could support the pending decision.    3      Foundational Information   Technical team members presented the data essential to a boundary adjustment process at  the first meeting.  Mike Chamberlain provided information about enrollment capacity at the  five existing high schools and the one that will open in 2017.  He described the “instructional  space capacity method” he used to calculate building capacities, which involved reviewing  floorplans with principals and walking through their schools with them to identify all classroom  spaces large enough for 30 or more students.  Mike explained how this method adjusted for  unusual instructional spaces (e.g., gyms) and shared instructional spaces (e.g., computer labs)  and reserved space for special programs (10 classrooms per school).    Using an average of 34 students per classroom, he calculated permanent capacity, portable  capacity, and total capacity by school.  He told them how this approach corrected for unusual  class sizes (e.g., band) and explained “functional capacity,” which reflects how specialized  spaces and scheduling complexities affect the use of high school space.    Robert McCracken described the student database the committee would use in their work.   The base year for enrollment projections was 2014‐2015, specifically the enrollment on  September 30, 2014.  He described this as “a robust database” the technical team had worked  with over the summer; in contrast, the September 30, 2015, enrollment data had been received  only two weeks before the first committee meeting.    The boundary adjustment process was based on enrollments projected to the year 2020.  The  school projections assumed that enrollment in the district’s option high schools would stay at  18 percent.  These enrollments have been stable over time and will remain so because these  programs are fully enrolled and the district does not plan to expand them.  Robert demonstrated the geographic information system (GIS) platform he used to support  the committee’s work, the SchoolSite Redistricting suite.  It allowed him to aggregate  predefined “grid codes” (small geographic areas of approximately 100 resident students) to  create attendance areas.  He used this system during meetings to test “what if scenarios” for  the committee.      Springboard Proposal   The committee began its work with a springboard proposal, on October 29.  Dick Withycombe  explained that the springboard proposal had been developed by the technical team only to  provide a starting point for the committee’s work — an alternative to a blank map or the  current boundaries.  The springboard was developed using the same data and criteria the  committee would use in formulating their recommendations.  Like all subsequent maps, it  contained information about the enrollment implications of proposed boundaries.   4      “It’s not the best solution,” Dick said of the springboard proposal.  “The committee’s task is to  assess its strengths and weaknesses and make improvements.  You will put the springboard in  the rearview mirror as you begin to develop your own recommendations.”      At that second meeting, the committee assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the  springboard proposal, based primarily on their own knowledge of school communities.  At the  next meeting, they began to incorporate what they were learning from community emails as  they developed the first “learning map” that moved them away from the springboard proposal  and toward their eventual boundary recommendations.    Committee Recommendations  The High School Boundary Adjustment Advisory Committee adopted its final boundary  adjustment recommendations at the conclusion of its March 17 meeting, by a vote of 13 to one,  with one member absent.  That package comprises a map of the recommended 2017‐2018  high school attendance areas and also four recommendations intended to ease the transition  for students and families affected by boundary adjustments.    Boundary Adjustment Recommendations  The High School Boundary Adjustment Advisory Committee created many generations of  boundary maps as they learned their way through the complexities of local geography and  enrollment data — and sought to respond to the very high level of community input.  They  arrived at the Revised Preliminary Recommendation Map on March 3 and gave the community  two additional weeks to comment before final review and adoption on March 17.  The  committee’s Final Boundary Recommendation Map appears on the following page.      5    March 17, 2016 High School Boundary Advisory Committee Recommended SY 2017-18 Attendance Boundary Map Recommended High School Attendance Boundaries Aloha HS Beaverton HS IS KA ER PCC Rock Creek Campus n Springville K8 IN SPR GV IL New HS at South Cooper Mtn LE Southridge HS Sunset HS Jacob Wismer ES IO N n Sunset HS n Fir Highland Grove ES Park MS n HART nCooper Mountain ES AY Sexton Mountain ES DENNEY HA LL GR EE NW n BROCKMAN Greenway ES nHiteon ES n n ROY RS ROGE AT SCHOLLS FERRY 125TH n Raleigh Hills ES n AL L EN n VERMONT Montclair ES GARDEN HOME nMcKay ES nWhitford MS OL ES ON nConestoga MS 121ST 121ST S Progress Ridge GAARDE FL n Scholls Heights ES OL L Y Y ON 121ST E TIL South Cooper Mtn HS SCH n R FER 135TH Murray Scholls Town Center 135TH 175TH n MURRAY Southridge HS Nancy Ryles ES Raleigh Park ES BEAVERTON HILLS DALE n Vose ES ES Ridgewood ES 92ND n E ON ALLEN SID n n Beaverton Town Center DAVIS n RN ES S William Walker ES RN BU OL LL HI BA HO FR LLS Y n WATSON 170TH AR Providence St Vincent Medical Center Cedar Park MS CAN MURRAY 185TH FA Errol Hassell ES 190TH West Tualatin View ES ES 217 198TH RN 6 HALL 209TH D CE Tektronix Beaverton HS Chehalem ES RIGERT BA Y2 n nBarnes ES S N GTO RMIN OAK n HW H WY N MI n Mountain View MS R FA KI N ET TV HIGHWAY Aloha Huber Park K8 n R NS L NEL COR n n Nike Woods Kinnaman ES ON GT SU Cedar Mill ES MU RR AY JEN THPRD Nature Park Aloha Community Library KE Nike n n L E IN WA L Beaver Acres ES MERLO n EL Meadow Park MS n Aloha HS RN n 158TH 173RD 185TH CO Oaks MS YL E Elementary Schools SK ELIN Middle Schools n Terra Linda ES SALTZMAN BAS SO N SC n Elmonica ES n n High Schools Bonny Slope ES Oak Hills ES nFive nMcKinley ES ± TH OM P nBethany ES N STU CKI Findley ES n THOMPSON CORNELL nHazeldale ES n WESTERN UN EE Westview HS LAIDLAW BETHANY R T Westview HS GR ISE ES nn ER LAW W Rock Creek ES EV n n Stoller MS KA LAI D This map depicts the High School Boundary Advisory Committee's recommended attendance boundaries, adopted at their final meeting on March 17, 2016. This map will be transmitted, along with transition recommendations, to the Superintendent who will make a final determination. The new high school boundaries will go into effect in the Fall of 2017. Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA Transition Recommendations  The committee was instructed to listen and read for transition issues and ideas from the  beginning of the process.  On February 4, they provisionally adopted three transition  recommendations; and on March 17, they finalized these recommendations and adopted an  additional one.  Students Who Are Juniors and Seniors in September 2017  The High School Boundary Adjustment Advisory Committee recommends that students who  will be in grades 11 or 12 in September 2017 remain at the high schools they attended in 2016‐ 2017.  By expanding the board’s expectation that seniors be grandfathered, the committee intends to  enable students who have already completed half their high school careers to remain in their  current schools.  This is also a response to many comments from students and parents.    By grandfathering all juniors, rather than offering an option, the committee intends to provide  enrollment predictability for all six high schools.  With respect to the new school, the  committee intends to facilitate the development of its International Baccalaureate® program  by providing an opportunity to create a foundation in grades 9 and 10 and to build a program  based on student interests, before offering courses in grade 11 the second year.  The  committee also believes that the new school may be better positioned to develop a unique and  positive school culture through the engagement of students who will be enrolled there for at  least three years.  This transition recommendation was provisionally adopted unanimously and included in the  final boundary adjustment recommendation package.   Students Who Enter High School in September 2017  The High School Boundary Adjustment Advisory Committee recommends that students who  enter high school as freshmen in September 2017 attend their neighborhood school, as defined  by the new boundaries.  This transition recommendation was provisionally adopted unanimously and included in the  final boundary adjustment recommendation package.   Students Who Are Sophomores in September 2017  The High School Boundary Adjustment Advisory Committee recommends that the new high  school open with grades 9 and 10.  However they also recommend that the district explore  7    possible ways of allowing some students who will be sophomores in 2017‐2018 the option of  remaining in their 2016‐2017 high school.    The intent of this recommendation is to encourage the school district to explore ways to offer  sophomores the option of staying in their 2016‐2017 high school.  This recommendation  reflects the committee’s respect for the many student and parent comments urging an option  that would allow students to stay in the high school they started.  It also reflects the  committee’s recognition that recommending a specific option that is both equitable and  feasible, given the complex implications for school staffing and programming, is beyond their  capability.  This transition recommendation was provisionally adopted by a vote of 12 to 2 and included in  the final boundary adjustment recommendation package.   Students Who Have Older Siblings in High School in September 2017  The High School Boundary Adjustment Advisory Committee recommends that students  entering high school by Fall 2019 who have a concurrent older sibling may attend that school.  The intent of this recommendation is to help families avoid disruption and to give families  more choice.  Avoiding the enrollment of siblings in multiple comprehensive high schools is  already a basis for administrative transfer; but that process is limited by the necessity of  balancing transfers between schools and does not offer parents as much certainty as the  committee wished them to have.    This transition recommendation was provisionally adopted unanimously and included in the  final boundary adjustment recommendation package.     8    Not an official District map For information and analysis . . . . . . purposes only Current High School Boundaries Superintendent's Recommended High School Boundaries October 10 2015 Elementary Middle School Feeder Patterns with Elementary Middle School Feeder Patterns - Current lit Feeders ES to HS This map depicts the SY 2017 Elementary Boundanes . 700/ 300/ l-t ES HS - 2020 High SchoolAttendance Boundaries, Middle School Boundaries amesrecommended by the Superintendent. - Aloha HS Chehalem: BHS 36% IAHS 64% BarnesBeaverton HS Cooper Mtn: BHS 49% SRHS 17% 34% ChehaIem; BHS 42% SCM 53% - South COO er Mm HS Findley: SUN 96% 4% Elmonica: AHS 43% IWHS 57% - Southrid epHS Greenwayi BHS 22% I SRHS 78% Errol HassellStoner Jacob Wismer: SUN 34% IWHS 66% Jacob Wismer: SUN 75% /25% WHS Stellar MS Sunset HS Feeds to; McKay: BHS 57% SRHS 43% McKinley: AHS 10% 90% - HS Sunset 8: Raleigh Park: BHS 61% SUN 39% Oak Hills: SUN 40% 60% Sunset Westview Rock Sexton Mtn: 64% 36% Vose: 38% 62% Creek Bethany Oak Hills McKinley Five Oaks MS 50 Five Oaks MS Feedsito: Feeds to: Aloha and Westview Aloha ahd Westview Meadow Park Elmonica Mead0?FLEJrh MS~Fe~??ds to: MS Feeds to. West Sunset'& sulsst - {We Tualatm Westview CedaLFfark MS Feeds'to: Beavenon Cedar Park M?S?ew Sunset Feeds to: Sunset Beaverton I William walker Ridgewood Raleigh Park 7 Raleigh I I Raleigh Mountain View MS Hills MS Hills a to: Fir Vase Whitford MS 596%; MS 7 Grave to- New t0: BeaVEI?ton Montclair Hi hland Park Beaverton 9 MS So'uthridge Highland Park Feeds to: Feedst?ca Beaverton} Beaverton 0? South_ridge Southridg? a New High?School Conestoga MS Cone?oga Feeds to: Feeo's South ridge?&? ?9 South?iidgs High o'ol Superintendent's Boundary Adjustment Criteria Evaluation Attachment Beaverton School District BEAVERTON Not an official District map - - - SCHOOL DISTRICT cl I - - a" ?a Superintendent's Recommended 5 2017-18 High School October 5, 2015 Attendance Boundary lVlap With Proposed Non-Transportation Zones we 8 The dashed circles depict distances of 1, 2 and egen A use I 4 2. 5?miles from each high school (as the crow flies). I Proposed The shaded areas depict proposed non-transportation Transportat'on i zones (NTZ), which, absent hazards, are those areas gone: by HS where students are expected to walk to school. A non- oun ary transportation zone is generally limited to 1.5 miles along 3 - Aloha I -- yr"; streets with suitable sidewalks. Non-transportation zones rims are subject to review and amendment. :l Beaverton 7 2 mile These figures should be interpreted with caution as they - south cooper Mt? radius ,a are preliminary and subject to change. In general, with the - _r A addition of a new high school, and the consolidation of ,9 1 5 .I 7 attendance areas of the 5 existing high schools, the share - Sunset r?diTS'e? a ii of students in an NTZ (who may be able to walk to school) relative to the total population will grow. WestVIew Actual walk-to-school rates may vary. I High Schools . - Parks, Open Space Natural Areas 15 Mile Radius from ?if sLAclE 55m 310w TV 1 Area transfered Ir 7 A to Hillsboro ., 4 School District MILES I ?5 MILES F~~Superintendent's Recommended a Boundary Map a Aloha 25% 46% Beaverton 36% 36% So Cooper n/a 26% Southridge 37% 54% V. Sunset 15% 24% M: Westview 32% 41% Total 28% 38% Area tra nsfered to Beaverton School District {ZEstimated of Students by HS within Non- Current HS 5 Transportation Zones Boundary Map As this area develops with streets and sidewalks, it is likely to be added to the NTZ area. 4.540 0.5 1 \l Note: Thesefigures are for estimation purposes only. areas are evaluated for ?2:37 hazards and crossing factors; if an area is determined to be a hazard for walking, transportation is provided. :r?rer/ ?l WW were); awn "l i ll m\ Superintendent's Boundary Adjustment Criteria Evaluation Attachment October 10, 2016 otal Number of Routes Route otal Number of Routes Route Routes to Routes to Routes to 480 Routes to 711 Difference Difference EWICA Routes to Routes to Difference WHS AHS Annual Operational Cost 9,218 7,053 (2,165) Annual Wage Bene?t Cost 10,476 9,134 (1,342) Total Annual Route Cost 5 19,694 5 16,187 5 (3,507) Total Number of Routes 3 2 -1 Avg Route Time 18:59 24:50 5:51 Avg Route Mileage 3.90 5.99 2.09 Average Miles from Center Point 2.9 3.0 0.1 WEST TUALATIN VIEW ES R013: to to Difference Annual Operational Cost 13,403 19,470 6,068 Annual Wage 8t Benefit Cost 14,582 16,674 2,092 Total Annual Route Cost 27,984 36,144 8,160 Total Number of Routes 4 4 0 Avg Route Time 19:50 22:40 2:50 Avg Route Mileage 4.22 6.14 1.92 Average Miles from Center Point 3.33 4.20 0.88 BARNES, RIDGEWOOD WILLIAM WALKER ES Routes to Routes to Difference SHS BHS Annual Operational Cost 36,403 21,827 (14,576) Annual Wage 81 Benefit Cost 42,885 24,887 17,998 Total Annual Route Cost 79,288 46,714 3 (32,574) Total Number of Routes 16 10 76 Avg Route Time 14:34 13:32 1:02 Avg Route Mileage 3.70 2.80 70.90 Barnes Avg. Route Mileage 3.24 3.00 -0.24 Ridgewood Avg. Route Mileage 5.37 3.11 72.26 Walker Avg. Route Milea?ge 2.38 1.48 70.90 BARNES 55 (West) Routes to Routes to Difference WHS BHS Annual Operational Cost 9,458 5,237 (4,221) Annual Wage 81 Benefit Cost 8,650 5,271 (3,379) Total Annual Route Cost 5 18,108 5 10,508 5 (7,600) Total Number of Routes 2 2 0 Avg Route Time 23:32 14:20 -9:12 Avg Route Mileage 5.96 3.30 -2.66 Average Miles from Center Point 4.4 2.2 -2.3 COOPER E5 Routes to Routes to Difference SRHS Annual Operational Cost 4,593 3,229 (1,363) Annual Wage 8: Benefit Cost 3,740 2,633 (1,107) Total Annual Route Cost 8,333 3 5,862 3 (2,471) Total Number of Routes 1 1 0 Avg Route Time 20:18 14:19 75:59 Avg Route Mileage 5.80 4.07 71.73 Average Miles from Center Point 3.8 2.5 71.3 COOPER MOUNTAIN ES Routes to Routes to Difference BHS Annual Operational Cost 10,913 7,530 (3,384) Annual Wage 81 Benefit Cost 10,232 6,242 (3,991) Total Annual Route Cost 5 21,146 5 13,771 5 (7,374) Total Number of Routes 2 2 0 Avg Route Time 27:48 16:34 -11:14 Avg Route Mileage 6.90 4.75 -2.15 Average Miles from Center Point 3.6 3.0 -0.6 COOPER MOUNTAIN ES Routes to Routes to Difference SRHS Annual Operational Cost 4,593 3,229 (1,363) Annual Wage 8t Benefit Cost 3,740 2,633 (1,107) Total Annual Route Cost 8,333 5,862 (2,471) Total Number of Routes 1 1 0 Avg Route Time 20:18 14:19 -5:59 Avg Route Mileage 5.80 4.07 -1.73 Average Miles from Center Point 3.8 2.5 -1.3 COOPER WUNTAIN E5 Routes to Routes to Difference AHS Annual Operational Cost 8,075 3,785 (4,290) Annual Wage 8: Benefit Cost 8,870 3,199 (5,671) Total Annual Route Cost 16,945 6,984 (9,962) Total Number of Routes 1 1 0 Avg Route Time 48:12 17:24 730:48 Avg Route Mileage 10.20 4.77 75.43 Average Miles from Center Point 2.0 2.6 0.6 Beaverton School District Transportation Impact Evaluation of the Superintendent's Recommended 5 201 7?18 High School Boundary Map Aloha HS Beaverton HS New HS SCM - Southridge HS - Sunset HS Westview HS I High Schools 2016-17 High School Boundaries Areas Transfered to New High A School Requiring Transportation Elementaiy School Boundaries 00.51 -. Westview HS Kinnaman Aloha HS reek ES FERRY Miles Routes to Routes to Difference BHS SRHS Annual Operational Cost 8,547 8,886 340 Annual Wage 81 Benefit Cost 8,237 10,136 1,899 Total Annual Route Cost 5 16,783 19,022 5 2,239 Total Number of Routes 3 3 0 Avg Route Time 14:56 18:23 3:27 Avg Route Mileage 3.59 3.73 0.14 Average Miles from Center Point 1.74 1.71 -0.03 Routes to HS 81 Benefit Cost Annual Route Cost Route Time Route Miles from Center Point Routes to HS 8t Benefit Cost Annual Route Cost otal Number of Routes Route Time Route Miles from Center Point Routes to HS 8t Benefit Cost Annual Route Cost 421 otal Number of Routes Route Time Route Miles from Center Point Superintendent's Boundary Adjustment Criteria Evaluation Attachment Routes to SRHS Routes to Routes to Difference Difference Difference Springville eigth 4 South CoopeLMtn HS I Routes to Routes to Difference Cost 545 8: Bene?t Cost otal Annual Route Cost otal Number of Routes Route Time Route Miles from Center Point Southridge HS BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT to change. The tables present estimated transportation distances and costs that would result from the proposed High School boundary adjustments. Figures are preliminary and subject Raleigh ES ir ES Summary of Transportation Impacts Current Projected Total 5 Total by Elementary Area From To Routes Routes Diff H5 School Elmonica Westview Aloha 3 2 (3,507) (3,507) West TV Sunset Beaverton 4 4 8,160 560 Barnes Sunset Beaverton 2 2 (7,600) Cooper Beaverton/Southridge South Cooper 4 4 (19,807) Nancy Ryles Southridge South Cooper 9 6 (3,762) Scholls Southridge South Cooper 6 2 (20,258) Sexton Beaverton/Southridge South Cooper 6 6 (6,192) Chehalem Aloha South Cooper 3 3 (3,528) Montclair Beaverton Southridge 4 3 1,693 Vose Beaverton Southridge 2 2 (1,663) Greenway Beaverton Southridge 1 1 (574) 5 5,201 Mckay Beaverton Southridge 3 2 3,506 Fir Grove Beaverton Southridge 3 3 2,239 Oak Hills Westview Sunset 4 3 2,718 rs 96 Jacob Wismer Westview Sunset 5 4 (2,622) Grand Total 59 47 (51,197) SEXTON MOUNTAN E5 Routes to Routes to . Difference HS Annual Operational Cost 15,246 13,409 (1,837) Annual Wage 8t Bene?t Cost 15,270 10,562 (4,707) Total Annual Route Cost 30,515 23,971 (6,544) Total Number of Routes 4 4 0 Avg Route Time 20:48 14:22 -6:26 Avg Route Mileage 4.80 4.23 -0.57 Average Miles from Center Point 2.7 3.6 0.95 SEXTON MOUNTAN ES Routes to Routes to Difference SRHS Annual Operational Cost 4,734 6,300 1,566 Annual Wage 8t Bene?t Cost 6,466 5,253 (1,213) Total Annual Route Cost 11,200 11,552 352 Total Number of Routes 2 2 0 Avg Route Time 17:36 14:17 -3:19 Avg Route Mileage 4.80 3.97 -0.83 Average Miles from Center Point 2.3 2.8 0.5 NANCY RYLES ES Routes to otal Number of Routes Routes to Difference Miles from Center Point 2.8 SCHOLLS HEIGHTS ES Routes to Routes to Difference SRHS Annual Operational Cost 14,430 5,110 (9,320) Annual Wage 81 Bene?t Cost 15,736 4,799 (10,938) Total Annual Route Cost 30,166 9,908 (20,258) Total Number of Routes 6 2 -4 Avg Route Time 14:18 13:03 -1:15 Avg Rmte Mileage 3.00 3.22 0.22 Average Miles from Center Point 3.0 1.1 -1.9 Not an official District boundary map For information and analysis purposes only