School Board Retreat
October 17, 2017
Pledge: Jess Christen
Reverence: Julie King
John-treated like a work session. Welcome to listen, but not open to community
comments. Introductions.
Enrollment review (Official October 1,2017)/Enrollment
Projections: (Rob Smith)
Alpineschools.org, go to business services, go to historical
reports, enrollment projections, October 1, 2017 count.
Projections go from largest schools for enrollment. Totals in yellow are total enrollment
(including self-contained). Column to
right is what district projected. Next
column over is the difference between projection and actual.
Hillcrest-353 students with 44 special ed students. School has declined by 3 students. Most of schools on bottom end are showing
decline in the number of students from last year’s enrollment count. Schools with lowest enrollment are often
oldest schools (exception of Westmore which was recently rebuilt).
How do we estimate projections?
Utah County-construction growth report-single family homes
(most likely to have school-aged children).
Also track high density, multi-family housing. Last 2 years, construction is similar to what
we saw in 1999-2000. Specifically
highlights Lehi, EM, and SS. January
–September 2016 (especially AF and SS) slightly more than January-September
2015-AF right behind Big Lots.
Besides construction, they also look at census data. 400% growth in the west areas, stable growth
everywhere else. Vineyard in the 2020
census will be another change due to growth.
3rd piece of data for projections-birth data.
From 1994-2008 ASD births were increasing an average of 5%
per year, in the 7 years since the average increase is 0.1% per year. ASD’s percent of kindergarten from births has
decreased from 99% to 83% in the last seven years. Look at mother’s place of residence instead
of city of birth (only certain cities have hospitals). Number of school-aged children might not be
growing at such a high rate. Percentage
of ASD students as part of Utah County population overall, dropped off in
2006. Due to charter schools, less kids
entering ASD in kindergarten-hitting about 83%.
Birth to kindergarten enrollment-some choose not to go to
kindergarten, but enter in first grade.
Slight gap due to charter schools, homeschooling (gap is about 1,000
kids). 2014 was the first time in many
years that K-2nd wasn’t the highest (2014 was 107 less, 2015 was 416
less, this year is 387 less). Charter
school enrollment-growth of 605 students (570 PY growth), 686 growth at 2 new
schools (Freedom Prep, Franklin Discovery), 81 decline at existing
schools. Some are at state cap, others
not (about 2300 difference).
P.55-enrollment history since 1990. October 2017-79,000. P. 57-58-elementary totals by area. Eagle Mountain/Saratoga Springs area has now
more students than Orem. P. 64-average
elementary size by area-new school (Springside) helped average the numbers in
Saratoga Springs. P. 11-October 1st
enrollment (actual and estimated). Page
26-27-2021 Projections. Schools to
watch-Vineyard, Thunder Ridge, Saratoga Shores, Dry Creek, Sage Hills, Black
Ridge. Usually less than 1% error rate
in ASD projections.
JB-charters can be sometime reluctant to share info. Sharing more freely now? Rob-yes.
Some more timely than others. Also,
look at what state has authorized them and what their October 1 head count
is. WH-those who do not come for
kindergarten, but first grade?
Rob-kindergarten to first will jump significantly. Also, another jump 6th to 7th
(kids leaving charters and homeschool for secondary schools). JS-back to charter school-I think some of the
things we have found over time is that there are those who attend charter
schools and migrate between charter schools as new ones open. Have we tracked those who have left and those
who have come back? I think we have
found not all of the students who are in charter schools have been in our
traditional public schools-may have come from homeschool or private schools, in
essence charter schools bring more students into the public system which decreased
funding for students. Rob-are we
tracking those that exit and then enter in a year? Yes, state tracks that. Registrars in schools are trained to enter
those codes. In the past we used to see
a lot of schools enter a charter and then come back to school after October
1. See class size increase in district
schools, but no funding. Worked at state
level-charters now funded on membership, just like school districts. This was first year for the change-expect a
significant change and plan that data will show that. 2nd piece-state policy makers are
wrestling with this-bringing kids into the system who had chosen not to use the
system (private and homeschool).
Increasing the number of dollars being issued for schools that are publicly
funded. SH-if charter schools are being
funded at state average, are charter schools getting more than ASD? RS-yes.
Some charters took a decrease (like in SLC that is funded higher), but
charters in lower funded areas (like ASD) got more money. SH-one of 5 factors is new family
construction, we have a lot of new apartments in Orem. Can we project students from high density
areas? RS-yes. About 10% of what would come from single
family home. Apartments are generally
more transitional and they tend to move to single family homes. jS-Do we know the number of students we have
from all of the apartments in the Vineyard area to all of the Vineyard
school? RS-not off the top of my head,
but we can get that. JS-our district is
over 100 years old, older areas in the district. As we have followed the regeneration process
and have seen our peak and decline, is there anything that would show
significant regeneration? Will we be
back to Orem numbers we saw in late 80’s?
In the 80’s, there was a moratorium on building which was why we had a
lot of trailers and productivity models.
Will Orem student population generate to those 80’s numbers? RS-initial answer, no. Could happen if families chose to purchase
homes, reinvest. Would have to happen at
significantly greater number. People are
delaying families and the size of families is significantly smaller. Those 2 factors make that difficult tis y
with certainty that we would go back to 80’s numbers in that community. That’s just Rob’s opinion. JS-as we look at homes built prior to 90’s at
similar cost of new home in another area.
Expanding out which is why we are seeing growth in SS and EM-children
and grandchildren of those who live in AF, PG, and Orem. Would that be fair to say? RS-Fair and accurate. Deterrent to sprawl-recognizing that schools
are infrastructure. Support impact
fees. MC-if you look at AF and PG, they
have a lot of bare ground. I don’t think
there are a lot of families buying 50-year-old houses, they are building new
homes. JB-in my area, there are more
existing homes being purchased by younger families. MC-Cherry Hill growth? RS-766 students (projected at 802). Included new development in the area. Number of students coming are not keeping up
with what we projected. What will happen
in future? Continue to watch data. Don’t expect a spike. SJ-magnet program with Spanish language
immersion-attendance from outside neighborhood boundary, effects their schools
more than those without a magnet program.
MC-Even with a reboundary, those may not make a difference due to
parents wanting magnet option. RS-and
our schools are open, they may choose to go to a school out of boundary. One of big drivers for lower Cherry Hill is
lower kindergarten enrollment. Primary
driver. JS-Used to be a 2 magnet school
with ALL program. MC-if I look at Cherry
Hill grade levels, K is down to 90.
Wouldn’t want to reboundary because looks to level off in the future. Right target.
Philosophy on School Size:
(John Patten)
Objective: Discuss
philosophy of school size. Discuss the
proposed consolidation and rebuild plan for elementary schools in Orem.
JB-need to correct a comment I made. Those families that did move into my
area-they move in for about 3 years and new families move in. PH-You know where they go? JB-out west!
Thanks for Rob and his team for providing great backdrop to
have a discussion on 2 topics-the board’s philosophy on school size, drill down
to a specific issue-the proposed consolidation of Orem schools. How can staff facilitate discussion? Share some questions on utility and benefit
of general philosophy of school size.
Reconstruction of schools-problems we are trying to solve,
constraints. How did we get here? What were the factors that brought us
here? David will provide summary of feedback. Can discuss options and recommendations. Summary and drafting of board statement if
they decide to pursue that.
Respond to questions silently (write down responses before
we discuss).
In the past our philosophy on school size has included three
factors
1.
Equity-does not necessarily mean providing equal
resources, but equitable access to knowledge
2.
Finances-how do we appropriately exercise a
stewardship for our schools and communities in expending taxpayer dollars?
3.
Aging facilities-at what point do we retrofit/remodel
a school vs. go for a rebuild?
What is your initial recommendation for a philosophy on
school size? Are there other factors
that add to these three areas to strengthen our philosophy? SH-lot of discussion to research on school
size. You can find anything you are
looking for to support your position.
Size of school not as important as expertise of teachers. If you have a good teacher, size of school
doesn’t matter. What happens in the
classroom is what matters. PH-didn’t
make so much difference the school as the teacher. What helps our teachers the most is our
professional learning communities.
Smaller schools with 2 teachers in PLC are very limited. Vista Heights has 9 science teachers-getting
too big there. If one or more are new
teachers in small schools, then where is the veteran teacher? My idea for elementary is 600-800. MC-you hit the nail on the head. What really counts is a teacher that cares
about students. With a team of 4-5
teachers, better odds one will connect well with your child. WH-follow on with Mark, not always a good
teacher or bad teacher, respond to teachers and personalities differently. There is a teacher that can influence your
child. There will be a teacher that will
be the perfect teacher for your kid and may not be the perfect fit for each
kid, even within the same family. More
teachers give parents and students more options (3-4 teachers), but 9 seems too
high. JB-I concur with what has been
said. I am looking at finances. If we lived in another area, 300-400 students
might be possible, that is not where we are.
$780,000 for an elementary school annually to keep open with a
principal, secretary, custodian, media specialist, utilities, etc. When I look at schools in the west with 1300
kids, with our budget, can we keep this up?
SH-tipping point is when you can’t fit kids in the lunchroom. To me, tipping point is 1,000 kids in an
elementary. Tipping point for small
school is harder, 300-400 kids limits collaboration. JS-typical school building we build now is
for 860. Once it gets to 1,000, we have
to deal with overcrowding. Years ago
when we talked about this, schools were optimal between 750-800. Is there an optimum? Is there a different optimum for high growth
vs. declining enrollment? Orem schools
were typically built smaller. That has
changed over the years. One of the main
reasons is the financial part. Because
Utah is lowest funded per pupil spending and ASD is at the bottom for funding,
we have to be responsible with what we build and offer the best educational
opportunities for our students. We are
doing well because of our teachers and families and communities. We see these things K-12 because of our
graduation rate. We have been above 90%
graduation rate and that is a K-12 effort. Tuesday school visits used to be
outstanding teachers, now doing visits with outstanding teams. Want to see the best to see how we can help
others. We are not about individual
classes, we are about teams, they are our students, they know every child. Our young people have not increased to the
numbers we saw in the 80s. I do have
concerns about declining areas, specifically in Orem. Those children in Orem have a lot of
diversity and a lot of poverty. We are
not where SLC or Granite is, but how do we educate those kids? It is all about the teacher. As we look at our optimum number, allow our
Title 1 schools to have instructional model with smaller class sizes, family centers,
more teacher assistance, ESL assistance for parents, meeting needs of most
at-risk students. We did this as
instructional model, not productivity model.
Need reading and math time of 10-11.
Would love that across our district.
We cannot provide class sizes of 20 throughout the district, but we can
provide opportunities for our most disadvantaged students. SJ-I agree with the philosophical shift that
some of you have already talked about, moving to Professional Learning
Communities. One of the key things that
was said (Wendy) an individual teacher will touch the life of a child and make
them feel welcomed in that classroom. A
tea of teacher who work together for the collective improvement in that grade
level, they can meet with individual student needs than an individual teacher can. As a team, they have talked about the needs
of those children, especially the ones you are talking about, JoDee. PLC culture that exists in our district has
been a game changer for us. School
within a school with PLC.
MC-equity-let’s assume that schools of 300 are optimal for
learning. We just can’t do that
throughout the district. Is it fair to
have that size school in one area of the district? I just don’t think that it an option. WH-that would be 140 schools. MC-school size as it correlates with SAGE
scores. Maybe not right measure, but it
is the one we have. There is no
correlation. Some big schools get great
scores and some little schools get great schools. Not highly correlated with school size. Garrick Peterson-SAGE scores. Top and bottom in each grade level in
growth. 5th grade-top in
growth-Barratt, Valley View, Saratoga Shores.
Bottom-Meadow, Cherry Hill,
Suncrest, Hillcrest. 6th grade Top-Sage Hills, Geneva. Bottom-Grovecrest, Snow Springs,
Shelley. Comes down to teams and what
they do, depending on grade level team.
KB-talk about # of kids taking ACT and AP Pass rate (other
end with secondary schools). GP-AP and
ACT a little more difficult because tend to follow demographic. Lone Peak will be highest in both and
teacher-driven. SJ-our graduation rates
when compared to 1990s or early 2000s, increased significantly. Number of kids taking ACT increasing with
scores increasing or staying flat.
Increased # of AP tests taken.
WH-if we were to build 140 schools, $1.2 billion if anyone
interested. Seismic issues-building
based on seismic codes, but we have schools in our district that were not built
that way. One of the issues with aging
facilities. In addition to buildings
being old and issues with wifi, being too hot or too cold, the seismic issues
are a greater issue for me. That is a
huge factor for me. Just goes to where
things were built and where they were built.
Geneva is most seismically compromised-need to balance that. Higher priority for me than equity
issue. MC-Grovecrest-open doors and then
lock them down. Along with seismic
issues, there are security issues. We
know there will be custody issues ,etc.
KB-focus group on bond about security.
What types of entrances do we have?
Community weighed heavily on. 3rd
thing we have not talked about as much is our ability to enhance student
learning in the 21st century.
Learn how to read, write, speak.
Are the aging facilities able to embrace learning? Not only seismic and safety, but matter of if
we are providing best educational opportunities for kids. Not just DIBELS, but providing
enhancement. SH-talked to Dr. Yowd (mr.
earthquake in Utah). Earthquake laws
came about due to earthquake issues in California. Anything built before 1980 does not take into
effect those standards. Be responsible
and take care of those building as quickly as possible. Look at all the risk factors for a school-as
we assign principals, rebuild, etc. because they are so complex. JB-seismic schools at top of list? RS-board took action after study done in
2006. Can only address as fast as we
have funding and priorities. Top-Geneva,
Sego Lily, AF High (original portions), PG High, Scera Park, Windsor,
Hillcrest, Sharon. Because we have
completed renovations, others have bumped to the top. PH-are any of these tragically
deficient? How dangerous are these
seismic issues? RS-not qualified as CFO to act as a civil engineer. The engineers consulted with FEMA. A lot of work has been done. Roof replacements are always looking for
additional protection. School size
(600-800) K-5 great school size! Junior
high (1,000-1200) grades 6-8. High
School (1600-2000) grades 9-12. Need
opportunities for kids to engage so they don’t feel lost or isolated
(athletics, club, groups-attendance and attachment equals achievement). Safety comprehensive programs, economic
efficiency, community dynamic (over 900 students, watch that school-where are
we going to build?). When it gets to 450
or below, watch and look at impact.
SC-thinking about how to share thoughts.
Need to change to accommodate circumstances we are facing. Growth, population, economics, diversity, tax
base, aging. Those things have
changed. If we are not careful and
willing to change just because 10 years ago we had a philosophy, or 20 years
ago and neighborhood schools and what we included in a school, we would be left
behind. Part of our philosophy is
influenced by where we live. We have
great families in ASD and the conditions that come from having an engaged
community. That is a fantastic advantage
and we also have great teachers. These
things make a huge difference. Our
administration makes good decisions at their individual schools. The teachers stay at those schools when they
feel supported. Talking about class
sizes and school sizes. We have
different financial issues here. If we
are spending in inefficient way, it takes it away from individual classrooms.
When we spend our money there, we take it away from other classroom reduction
efforts in other places in the district.
We have a responsibility as a board to establish policy and give
direction on the things our community has asked them to represent them
for. They are the taxpayers of the
district-the proper use of their tax money, and provide a great educational
experience. Need to be efficient and how
we spend our money. Every time we build
a school, it adds community value-playing fields, gym, community center,
opportunity for families to participate in things the city might need-it is a
great secondary purpose. Responsibility
to provide parks is not our responsibility.
Shouldn’t take money away from the classrooms to protect or provide an
amenity for a community. Our real
responsibility-educating students.
JP-the discussion we have had is very good. As I have visited with members of board and to
have a discussion on this topic, it leads us into the specifics of the Orem
consolidation plan we can discuss.
“We accomplish our mission of educating students through the
work of the Professional Learning Community.
Engaged learning occurs when a connection exists between a quality
teacher and the child. A team size of
3-8 may optimize teachers’ abilities to intervene for each child. When improvements to school buildings are
necessary, we should place a high priority on safety and creating learning environments
for the 21st century. The
number of students at a given school is largely determined by community factors
(such as growth and family size). Given
current funding structures, we should watch elementary schools whose enrollment
falls below 450 or above 900 to determine possible adjustments.”
SJ-high growth areas we build schools for 800-900, knowing
that they will also experience the cycle of declining enrollment. Do not want to overbuild. GP-when it comes to intervening for students,
right work needs to take place, systemic approach. WH-throw something out. Don’t know what we are talking about if we
are creating learning environments for the 21st century (open
classroom environment), not sure we want to change the design of schools. Things that have worked well for 100 years
will work well in the next 100 years.
KB-infrastructure. JS-21st
century school, don’t know what a classroom will look like in 30 years. Got to walk halls of old Orem High before
torn down. 1 plug at the front, 1 plug
at the back, wires coming down from ceilings for technology. Make sure the infrastructure is such that the
current and extended needs will be in place in that building.
Proposed Consolidation and Reconstruction:
The Problem We Are Trying to Solve-
When
the population at a school requires additional resources beyond those generated
by student enrollment over a significant amount of time. For instance, if the cost to educate each
child at a given school rises significantly above district average, it should
prompt a discussion by the respond to
that. Here is the tension: We want out schools to be
community-responsive and provide students with educational opportunities
consistent with what they might find at any of our schools, yet we bear a responsibility.
Background to the Current Proposal-In considering a rebuild
of Scera Park, given declining enrollment in the area, it naturally lead to the
questions, for how many students should it be rebuilt? Should it include Hillcrest? Hillcrest came off Title 1 status,
necessitating additional FYE from district dollars that they had used from
Title I dollars. With these two forces
occurring simultaneously …
Discussion on proposed consolidation and reconstruction of
Orem elementary schools:
David Stephenson-appreciation to board and the time they are
committing to all students by looking at the data and having a
conversation. Binder provided to board
with comments from Orem survey. Share
info from feedback button on district website.
Green folder-large sheet with graphs on back with numbers
that correspond to graphs. 82 patrons
have given feedback.
Geneva-4 (all against consolidation)
Qualtrics-142 responses-(against consolidation) original
proposal
Cascade-20 (all support)
Qualtrics-58 responses
Hillcrest/Scera Park-18 (9 support, 9 oppose)
Qualtrics-135 (Hillcrest-38 parents support consolidation,
32 oppose) (community members oppose 24, support was 15)
North/West-40 (all support consolidation)
“Schools in other parts of Alpine are very crowded-some over
1000. Consolidation of small schools is
necessary for efficiencies and cost savings.
Please look at what is best for the district at large. School closures are sometimes necessary. It can be hard but the right thing to do.”
“Closing Hillcrest without further study is
irresponsible. There are more options
besides this proposal that need to be looked at and considered. The small classes and small school
environment are working-we don’t want or need our schools to look like
mega-schools.”
“As a Hillcrest parent, I support the proposal to
consolidate Hillcrest and Scera Park. I
have emailed the board my reasons for this support. I see this as a way to strengthen Orem
schools and am optimistic about the advantages a new, larger school can
provide.”
Kimberly Bird-Excuse John Patten-runs all boundary
committees. Not just yes or no, lots of
options in between. Action item for
November 14th. If you do go
with consolidation plan, have to hold public hearing. No hearing when build, but budgets, boundary
change, bond, or consolidation requires public hearing. If you are going to just rebuild school, no
public hearing. Will need to put out
public information if necessary.
JB-Let’s look at one proposal, one school at a time. KB-Let’s look at original proposal at
Geneva. Consolidate school to 2 other
schools. WH-Big concern is their school
is #1 or 2 on seismic issues, oldest school in district. Was it the plan if we don’t do this? If we do a bond, if it passes, 5 years before
a new school rebuild. Concern with
safety and every year we maintain this at $780k, that is money we can’t spend
somewhere else. Too many ifs. Feeling like we made a decision about Geneva
when it was really a feeling of understanding.
Are there other options in the middle?
Just waiting for a bond for 5 years is not an acceptable risk? PH-What happens to Suncrest which is in
Geneva’s backyard? KB-Suncrest has not
been brought up. Feedback was
overwhelming to keep Geneva together. We
don’t need to break up that community.
Also discussed moving them on to 5 year capital improvement plan. What happens with Suncrest? WH-Can we move Geneva to Suncrest and add on
to Suncrest? JS-Recognize that Geneva is
one of our most seismic compromised schools in district. Conversation could be separate from
Hiilcrest/Scera Park consolidation.
Could move Geneva kids to Suncrest and add satellite until 5 year plan
and new school built. WH-to rebuild
Geneva when Suncrest is functional, can’t we add on? JS-what would provide better usage? Is it better to add on or better to build new
school? There are issues at
Suncrest. Whoever designed Suncrest
deserves to be shot. JC-Issues with
Suncrest. SH-Suncrest located in an odd
place. Use Suncrest for playing fields
for Mountain View. JB-The Geneva parents
didn’t have as much heartburn if all moved to Suncrest? JS-OK with consolidation. But want to be kept together, not split
up. JB- what about Satellite with
restrooms, office area, classrooms on Suncrest property. SJ-I would recommend board consider not
changing Geneva community at this time.
When you determine to do something, property between Suncrest and
Geneva. Consider putting this on hold
anything to do with Geneva until a plan is formulated that would say specifics
about what we would do. Just leave at
status quo. JB-What’s the newer build on
Geneva? Lunchroom/gym.
MC-my impression is that if Geneva not being used for
Cascade students, then not that different from some of those other schools we
are talking about consolidating. We can
wait for consensus from community on how to make that happen. JS-2018-750 with self-contained
students. Need to have a good plan on
how to combine 2 Title 1 schools.
2021-projection of 690. That size
could be optimal. PH-we’re just waiting
until we have things figured out? Sharon
and Windsor were on discussion and then pushed off. Feels like we are just delaying this. Why are we kicking the can down the road for
Geneva and Suncrest? What are we waiting
for? JS-Funding. Not enough capital dollars. A bond to build schools. WH-why would we say Hillcrest and Scera Park
are higher priority than Sharon and Geneva?
We can build one school.
Exploring all options. Thought
original plan was really good. JS-Good
question. 2 schools are different in
combining. What does it look like to
combine 2 Title 1 schools? Conversation
with Hillcrest and Scera Park have happened.
Geneva and Suncrest and Sharon and Windsor are all high Title 1 schools
(Geneva and Sharon bounce back and forth).
Vineyard is Title 1 with highest student population. MC-original proposal was to split vs.
combining. I like the idea of combining
vs. splitting better. KB-5 year capital
plan coincides with potential bond.
Future potential plan will impact our 5 year capital plan. Keep Geneva intact, put on 5 year improvement
plan. Hold community meetings about
future of the school. SC-when worked on
last bond, took a year process. Rebuild
for Geneva and Scera Park and Cascade were all considered. Approved rebuild for Cascade. On the bond and money to do that. Following that decision to have Cascde on the
bond, Scera Park families continued to express that they still have needs. Discussion about what to do is trying to meet
needs of older schools even though not on the bond. Needs that are not yet met. No money to build extra school. How could we come up with some money? Consolidation plan is the result of that
discussion. Can move forward now or
delay. Will take longer if we hold
off. Savings from operating more efficiently
these small schools through consolidation would be where some of the funding
came from. If we don’t come up with the
money, it will come from something else-something else will not be done.
Something else would be extra overhead in those small schools. Would pay for itself in 5-6 years. SJ-when you make that statement about savings
being used, not contemplating selling existing property-could be maintained for
green space. If Orem would regenerate in
population, already have property within city if need to build. JB-back to Geneva. SC-the more we are willing to take steps to
address reduction in overhead, the payback timeframe is quicker. The savings from reducing number of small
schools will generate $740k for each school each year. Original plan included closing Hillcrest and
Geneva. If do not close Geneva, lose
$750k a year. SH-have 3 unnamed schools
for high growth area, do we really need 3 schools in west? PH-we need all the schools we can get. SH-take all 5 schools in Orem, rebuild them. D we have order for how we rebuild them? And then figure out how to pay for them? JS-Advantageous to have Orem on bond. Can commit to one school perhaps, but to
continue to build schools, better to build using bond dollars. SC-maybe in a Geneva/Suncrest consolidation,
should not expect net $750k because portion would be invested into Suncrest
into operations. GP-if you look at how
that would play out, look at culture of school.
Geneva has one of the best cultures.
Principal, phenomenal coach. Maybe
2 coaches in building for support. Can’t
get away with poor instruction in those schools. KB-Keeping Geneva together, but possible
consolidation of Geneva and Suncrest or talk about it in a year? SC-Study the process. KB-Geneva students will stay together. Study process of consolidating Suncrest and
Geneva with the intention of consolidation.
SH-If we come up with a plan, we are doing the public a disservice. Say we are intending to close Geneva in 2019
and give them a year to come up with a plan.
Give them projected timeline.
KB-focus group allows us to do that.
Key stakeholders can participate.
Going through the process, having focus groups, and coming up with
proposal in spring. WH-anything under
450 students, look out 5 years and start having discussions. There will be a boundary adjustment that will
infuse Westmore.
Scera Park/ Hillcrest:
MC-take an intermediate position. Use Hillcrest to move Scera Park kids there
for rebuild. Use portables for Cascade
rebuild. Pushes what happens to
Hillcrest several years down the road.
Build Scera Park for 800 students.
JB-While Hillcrest and Screa Park at Hillcrest (bring in portables to
make it happen), we will see trend at Hillcrest as far as population. Does it go down or is there a resurgence? JS-I think it will remain flat. JB-Move Scera Park to Hillcrest while tear
down Scera Park and rebuild. Move Scera Park back over. Then make decision on Hillcrest. JC-9 months to a year to build school, but 6
months to get contracts, plans, etc. If
we build a different school, a lot more time to do that. JS-Could do this with 2019 opening of new
rebuild for Scera Park. Could move
Cascade to Hillcrest property with portables.
First thing we need to decide if combining Scera Park and Hillcrest. Feedback and faculty are supportive of
consolidation (Scera Park has 100% faculty support for consolidation). JS-True for Scera Park, but not true for
Hillcrest faculty. Look at survey
statistics. SC-remaining status quo
probably means they should continue to have extra teachers assigned to schools
beyond ratios allowed. They want the
best of the best to stay the same. Wish
we could do that. We have to make some
progress in efficiencies to build a Scera Park school. WH-some feedback concerns Hillcrest
property. Possible high density
housing. Status of property is important
component. If we push that off for a
couple of years (move Scera Park to Hillcrest and then bring Cascade over), we
solve problem with Cascade kids on property during rebuild. Status quo is an opportunity cost. Numbers say we need to consolidate Scera Park
and Hillcrest. KB-on one, closing
Hillcrest and rebuild Scera Park. Needs
to be clear to the public that this will be one school community. What to do with Hillcrest property is pushed
back 3 years for community to come up with plan to work with city about what
that property can be used for. SC-Some
concerns about property are outside of our level of authority like zoning (that
belongs to city). We should not
guarantee zone or use, separate public process.
WH-Gives them 2 years to rally and gain support and elect different
people to city council if needed, gather investors, etc. SC-Cascade was on phase 3. Saying we are swapping new school and Cascade
as far as timing. Hillcrest and Scera
Park consolidation would occur before Cascade.
SJ-Can keep Hillcrest property or sell it. May need money from selling it or may benefit
the district and community by keeping it and watching for future potential
growth. KB-that would take a lot of
quick action and put pressure on Rob and Jess.
SJ-haven’t talked about this option, just going to throw it out
there. Talked about moving up Cascade
build. What if pushed it to phase 4, put
Scera Park/Hillcrest to phase 3, gives Rob and Jess a little more breathing
room. One thing that concerns me is you
are rushing things-when you rush things, you make mistake. KB-Design will need time. Drop-off for 750-800. JS-much more difficult to postpone people on
bond or push people on bond? Scera Park
sits with corner of 2 entries. Hillcrest
has one street-one entry. Be careful
about pushing modified, extended day.
Would be the best for the community to have a combined, modified
extended day. Class sizes would go up
3-4 during the day. There has been a lot
of contention and they need some time to heal.
SH-Do Scera Park and Cascade on third phase with Cascade being housed on
site (costs more money). JC-to put a
satellite at new school costs $1 million.
KB-anyone not feel comfortable with consolidation, only want to rebuild
Scera Park for just Scera Park population? Look at options-both being
considered for phase 3 with Cascade students housed in satellite while Scera
Pak moves over to Hillcrest to join prior to them becoming a new school
community together, OR move Scera Park over to Hillcrest over to become new
school together, demo Scera Park, and construction occurs, all move over to
Scera Park property THEN move Cascade over to Hillcrest while Cascade under
construction. JB-Rob, do you need more
time or less time to find the money.
RS-you do not need to sell Hillcrest to finance construction of new
school. We have looked at several
options not knowing where board would go.
Can move as fast or as slow to prepare financing options. 3 options do
not impact decrease in capital/improvement funds. KB-should not use phases because that is
bond. 2018-2019 Scera Park moves to
Hillcrest. 2019-2020 Hillcrest and Scera
Park at new school. 2019-2020 Cascade
moves to Hillcrest site while Cascade rebuilt.
Jess is over transportation and will need transportation study. Public hearing on October 24th
will action item on November 14th or can push back.
JB-October 24th, go to AF High, do all the
recognitions, any public comments except consolidation. Then public hearing regarding
consolidation. Then board business. MC-Hillcrest parents suggested we look at
reboundarying Cherry Hill to bring up their numbers. Impression that this is not a viable option,
but wanted to bring it up. PH-Would have
to get Cherry Hill parent input, pushes decision back even further. Various-let’s stay the course. KB-Will prepare info for public hearing. PH-there are other solutions to Hillcrest,
bringing it up as far as feasibility study (received e-mail). SH-they are talking about seceding from the
Union. KB-Is there a need for Rob to
study in addition to what he has reposted to you? MC-document about title 1 status of schools? It appears a lot of Title 1 schools in big
schools. Can’t say Orem schools have Title
1 kids and should be smaller, that was my take.
RS-federal program are challenging and sometimes don’t make sense. Each student that is disadvantaged gets
funding. You may generate dollars, but
those dollars are not necessarily given to your schools. JS-looked at number of students FARM
(161). 23 more schools above 161 kids on
FARM. But because of size of school,
these schools don’t qualify for Title 1.
500 kids to 1200 students.
Difficult to say unique thing about school when majority of schools have
Title 1 kids. 444 kids at Vineyard that
qualify for FARM. Orem kids are in
smaller schools with larger percentage of kids on FARM. Other schools actually have more kids on
FARM. MC-focus groups at Hillcrest? Maybe push back vote? KB-Geneva and Scera Park focus groups. WH-what we have heard is don’t close
Hillcrest. Fine to do a focus group, but
want it focused on what are the options?
Maybe there is an option we don’t know.
Barry Beckstrand-Hillcrest and Vineyard are expecting focus groups. KB-Will not go with timeline of October 24th. Public hearing on November 14th
and vote on November 28th.
MC-would feel better if we did focus groups and pushed back. KB-focus group by John Patten. Only for Scera Park and Hillcrest? JS-What would be discussed? MC-Like to present some of this information
to those parents. Go beyond question of
whether we do it or not. WH-We need to emphasize
the support and benefits teachers get from working together. We do early out for a reason. KB-back to data-large collaboration teams as
well as small collaboration teams. Focus
group held next week and how they will be invited-by invitation only is usually
the process. Sticking with focus groups
from key stakeholders (teachers, principal, PTA, SCC, rep from each side). JB-what size group? KB-3-4 tables. SC-2 SCC members, 2 PTA members, 2 teachers, principal,
2 community members from each side from Scera Park and Hillcrest. Present current proposal, if something hasn’t
been presented previously, bring that to the focus group. Not worth having a meeting to hear the same
info already presented. (this is where I
started to fade out because it has been over 6 hours and i.cannot.even.). SH-people are extremely critical and vocal,
we need to hold focus groups. SC-what
about Monday and have their thoughts presented on Tuesday. PH-if anything new, come on down. RS-one of the criticisms has been feeling
rushed. If we have meeting Monday, does
it give people sufficient notice to bring people in? Fall Break.
JB-no focus groups? JS-if we do
focus groups, then staff runs it and the board stays away. KB-leading discussion would be
Barry/Rob/John. Contemplate dates for
public hearing and vote. JS-what is goal
for focus group? MC-do what we said we
would do. JS-and what we do with the
results? MC-that would be fine with me. KB-November 14th-review focus
group info, public hearing, and discussion/action item regarding consolidation. End at 3:19 p.m.
