Ms. Tanner, please call the roll.
The scene.
Here.
Planton.
Present.
Gabriel.
Martin.
Jordan.
Here.
Rousson.
Here.
And Martin.
Present.
Okay.
Welcome, everyone, on this very windy Friday.
We're going to talk about our facilities and ed planning.
So I'll turn it over to cooperative strategies.
Welcome.
Thanks for being here in person.
And for Mr. Sacks, Mr. Sturks.
Mr. Fraley, did you have a few words?
I was just going to introduce them.
Oh, go ahead.
All right.
Good morning to Dr. Martin.
Anything to do with the camera song?
Dr. Bird's song, members of the board,
we have our consultant group cooperative strategies with us
this morning.
David Sturks and Matt Sacks,
and they're here to present recommendations for moving forward
with our facilities master planning.
Thank you.
Good morning.
It is good to be in person finally, for the most part here, despite Mother Nature trying
to prevent us otherwise, so we're grateful for that.
Okay, I just wanted to go ahead and set the frame for the day.
The meeting is scheduled until 1.
Our presentation is not that long, so no death by PowerPoint.
we're not going to go for hours here talking at you.
The idea is that we, was that, go through the
recommendation slide. We have ample printouts, large printouts
there to look at. We have the 11 by 17s
of some maps. We have GIS live. So
we're going to attempt to cover most of the, a lot of the data questions that you'll have
in the presentation. Any questions that you have, any
Data as you're going as we go through the slides
I'd like to go through it for the most part
Start to finish because it is is not that long and then let's go back and dive deep
If however in the process of going through it
There's something on a slide that you need a question on in order to write down your other question
Yes, go ahead. You know interrupt interrupt is not this can be fairly informal in that sense
But there we go
So, let's just get started. In the presentation, what we're looking at right now is implementing
the recommendations from the Facilities Master Plan. This plan, starting in 2019, pre-pandemic,
proceeding as we were on a one-year timeframe, got extended by a year thanks to that pandemic.
We took a big pause in the middle, and I'll go with just some reminiscing there
for a minute to go back on what we did, who we met with, what we covered and just to make
sure that we level set with where we were.
The resulting of that process in summer of 21 was to recommend rebuilds of Maury, Granby,
Norview and Jaycox and to look at consolidations of Tidal Water Park in 23 due to the development
there to look at moving kids out of Madison, the Secondary Alternative Education Program.
The concept at the time was a section of Rosemont. That concept has shifted.
I'll explain that in a minute and I'll explain the reasons why.
Why we think it's better where we stand now.
Also, moving east into Fairlawn to, like, two miles apart there to strengthen that program.
And at the time it was the consolidation of Lindwood Elementary School due large in part to the fact that the enrollment at the school, the capacity is less than 300, which is less than your minimum viable capacity size of 350.
And the surrounding surplus was significant, the most significant in the division. So that was the thinking in 2021.
one. For the most part, it stands. There's a few minor modifications we'll talk about
there programmatic in nature more than anything. Looking forward, we are looking at implementing
this plan starting down the path. You can't eat the elephant in one bite, so they say
you have to get going on what is the most highest needs. Right in front of you, that
is accessible. If we could build the schools and have the authority to raise the capital
and do that. That would be a lot of our presentation today, but we don't. That is, although those
discussions are in process with the city. We are focused on the redevelopment and the
needs to move Tidewater Park and how to do that effectively. And we have a solution
to that that addresses multiple points from underutilization to theme and choice programs
and diversity. We are looking at operational efficiency. The population has continued to decline, as you know, since Matt and I have started shortly after 2011.
The district has lost about 5,000 students, a little over 5,000 students since the time. And our capacity is largely the same.
about $37,000 when we started and about $37,000 now.
And so we're looking at utilization and where we have pockets,
where we need to better utilize our schools,
not just for an abstract goal,
but because underutilized schools are underfunded schools,
are underresourced schools.
And we have to look at providing ample resources for our students.
That is our driving value,
and I will get into those again in a minute.
And in the process of doing that, working to eliminate concentrations of poverty,
this initial first steps into the master plan implementation does that by two means.
One, directly through adjacent boundaries where you have too much surplus capacity.
And the ability to diversify will show maps and data and dive into that information.
That's a positive. And we look at doing the same thing through choice
in the better utilization of Ruffner and having a 3A choice themed program there, and we'll
go through that in its first steps.
And in the process of doing so balancing school boundaries, aligning feeder patterns and
boundaries for the goals that we've discussed.
So looking back,
our principles, when we do a master plan it ends with this.
All options are intended to be a trade-up scenario for students.
That is our bottom line.
When we're looking at this, we do not approach this with a deficit mindset,
but with what is going to provide the best sustainable operational environment
and physical environment for all students, equitably.
We do that by using data.
We have lots of data. We swim in it.
Anything else that you see that we don't need here that we don't have
that you want to ask about, we will dive into.
And we'll look for it. We don't have it. We'll get it to you.
Community engagement is meaningful. It is not a stunt. It is not a show.
The engagement that we have is directly involved and relates to
and informs each of our next steps that we do this in a transparent process.
We use that largely through the website.
It means like this, there is no smoke-filled room.
It is simply a process of collecting feedback, looking at data,
having a conversation and iterating, going back and back and back until we settle on
themes that are consistent and that address our core values of providing that better learning
environment for all students equitably. The steering committee, when we were meeting
with them first in person and eventually in virtual Zoom meetings, asked them to come
up, what are the outcomes, what are the values that you bring to the table? And
And so, in one of the meetings, they went through and created in small groups what they
saw as their guiding principles, which is equity, that the recommendations be data-driven
because where there is an inequities, we see them.
And we use that data to address them and to do it in a logical, strategic way.
That we want quality facilities and so all students have warm, safe, cool and
dry facilities, that we diversify, that we eliminate concentrations of poverty as we
can, where we can, as soon as we can, in a way that we practically can, and that we
do so in a fiscally responsible way, that we are adjusting to the declining number
of students.
Again, these are not adjustment in the abstract for the abstract, but in order to provide
more resources to our kids we have to be efficient with how we use those resources
distribute them. And so that is behind our recommendations to move the plan forward as well.
We started with data collection and pre-pandemic and options development
meeting in the fall of 2019 early winter of 2020 to look at data and to draft some ideas
for steering committee feedback. We went in February to meet with the steering committee,
review those draft options get their feedback, have the steering committee
annotate for benefits and challenges and to provide us their feedback at that
time which then informed the presentation as it went to the community
dialogue on March the 10th right before everything changed and as the new
some of you were there in that meeting and then the world shifted. We had
our next steering committee meeting because of the pandemic virtual as
things were shutting down at the end of March of 2020 and then another steering committee
meeting in the end of April, again, to review and update the options at that time and to
get their feedback.
Then as we took a pause per direction from you all, from leadership, that we needed
to concentrate on feeding kids.
You needed to concentrate on the immediate and the needs of your students and teachers
and and this needed to take a break. We revisited in March of 2021, nearly a year to date since our
last community dialogue, and then entertained two virtual community dialogues April 13 and 15.
We then took the feedback from that period of time pre and and during pandemic to take all of
the inputs and ideas from the different options, put it together in a cohesive recommendations
packet in April. We drafted that packet and brought it to the steering committee in May
and then to you all in June and July of 21. So that is the look back where have we been
and how it evolved and how we adapted a bit to our realities. Now again the recommendations
has previewed here. And as you know, as far as rebuilding, rebuild more and then up to three
elementary schools, Granby, Jacobs, Norview rationale, these are based upon age and condition
needs. That's how we rank these. And the costs that you see there, this is back from 2021,
and they are on the rise. So consider the high end of more estimate to be your starting point
at this point.
Inflation is in uncharted territory.
We'll hope it recovers.
Consolidations.
Looking at condition, chronically declining enrollment,
area redevelopment, and strengthening programs for our kids.
One, Tidewater Park.
You know, that is by 2023.
We've got to move.
And that's the area of redevelopment.
So that is coming at us.
And so the recommendations address TWP by moving those programs into Ruffner as a 3-8, as was part of the recommendations in 2021.
Madison Alternative Center, relocate the program. That facility has got to go.
Those kids have got to have a better learning environment. This plan does that.
And I'll go through that in more detail here in a minute.
Eastern preschool, again consolidating into the Fairlawn School less than two miles away
to have a concentrated pre-K center as part of a two-pronged pre-K approach
for the division of having centralized centers for pre-K
as well as having pre-K classrooms distributed amongst all elementary schools
in four north-south quadrants that we'll look at here in a minute as well.
well, and that then Lindenwood, given the demolition of the poor condition Annex, that
was on the side of that school, the capacity shrunk to under 300.
That is in an area with the most elementary surplus capacity in the division, flanked
by schools that are half full.
And when doing redistricting, can diversify those schools and still fit within their
capacities comfortably.
And so the recommendations move forward to repurpose Lindenwood for the Madison program,
originally conceived to go in Rosemont, but this ended up being a better place.
And I'll go through the details as to why here in a minute.
And I will use the right computer to advance, not mine.
Okay, so the considerations for rebuilding consolidation schools, again,
building age and condition. Again, we've spoken a lot over the years of FCI, cost to rebuild versus
cost to replace. I'll go into a little bit more nuance on the FCI as it pertains to Lindenwood
here in a few minutes. We look at area redevelopment. What is happening that we have to adapt to?
School size? When we do adapt and we make those once in generations or once every limited
amount of time investments, these large investments in schools that we're doing so in a way that
creates a sustainable environment for our kids so that we can afford to highly resource
them.
That then is always the driver.
How do we highly resource our kids in terms of form-safe, cool, dry, and educationally
adequate facilities, and that we are putting them into facilities that have the capacity
to sustain a comprehensive program, because we have to be efficient in order to be able to do so,
and utilization related to that discussion.
Programmatic, looking at providing choice options
We're looking at how to do that thoughtfully, and I'll go over those slides in a minute.
Finally, this is the final look-back slide.
This is what you saw in the summer of 21,
which was the idea at the time of this year
moving Madison to Rosemont of 2022 to three,
Eastern to Farallon in 23, 24,
Consolidation Tidewater Park and moving into Ruffner.
So that was the idea then.
And then looking at the rebuilds to advocate,
that's that middle light blue swim lane there,
advocating for those rebuilds working with the city
to identify what was probably coming down the pike and any rebuilds that would not be
scheduled in conversation with the city would need to roll back into your CIP, your capital
improvement plan, so that we can keep everybody warm, safe, cool, dry.
Roofs, envelope issues, windows, doors, all those major things to keep the environment
healthy for our kids.
We don't want to invest in that and then three years later start building a new
school.
But if we're not going to build a new school and it needs it, we've got to put
that back in the CIP.
And then along the way, as you recall, ESSER, the ARP funds, American Recovery Rescue Plan,
presented significant capital infusion promise to the division over the coming years.
And that really focused our thinking and let's use those funds to address HVAC needs,
get those clean air for our kids, take care of roofs where we need to and where we can
to help seal it and just make that distribute those funds so that we have
the most bang for buck every kid addressing your basic needs in all of our
schools. So that was what was presented to you in the summer of 21. Now where are
we at? As far as the rebuilds go there's no modification no changes to
our recommendations as they are because the the rationales as to why
they were recommended have not changed.
When it comes to the consolidations,
there is one new addition,
and it's not a consolidation, it's a program add.
Monroe being highly underutilized,
significant surplus capacity sitting there,
and being in the quadrant,
which we'll look at in a second,
that needs to add more pre-K.
So we have a space, we wanna add more pre-K.
What do we do?
We add pre-K classrooms.
So we have adding pre-K classrooms to Monroe to better utilize that three new pre-K threes two new pre-K threes rather and three new pre-K four classrooms
bringing it to a total of eight pre-K classrooms at Monroe by this summer to do that over the summer be ready for the fall.
Better utilize the facility adds as a needed program there and furthers your pre-K strategy.
When it comes to tidewater part no modification closing TWP in the summer of 2023.
next summer as in timing with the redevelopment, moving those kids in the 352 Ruffner as a
3-8 program with dedicated choice seats. I'm going to go over that slide in a minute.
There are significant choice seats available at Ruffner when you do this move, 400 plus
depending on how you look at the capacity. And we'll go through a bit of the strategy
in thinking about defining that themed program, filling that theme program and
diversifying while offering choice.
Partial modification to the Lindenwood,
which is recommended for Madison Rather,
which is recommended moving to Lindenwood
instead of moving to Rosemont into the wing.
The idea there, go over that slide in detail as well,
is that Lindenwood Elementary School, as it stands,
is structurally under capacity
to be a comprehensive elementary school
that's self-sustaining.
And in the area with significant elementary school,
surplus capacity the most in the division so it flanked by two half full
schools so it it provides that opportunity to give the Madison kids a
better home I'll go through the condition of Lindenwood the vast majority
of Lindenwood's needs are coming condition needs are 15 years in the
future the ones that are present are being rolled into the CIP. Eastern
pre-K and again I'll go into detail here. Eastern pre-K no modification
Fall 22, move and looking at some ADA enhancements that will be done in-house to prepare that facility further.
And Lindenwood Elementary School, this is still rezoning to Willard and Taylor,
but also repurposed the facility for Madison as discussed.
And in doing so, we have details on those boundary shifts and moving the students and the impacts to capacity,
the impacts to diversity, and they are in the direction that we want to go.
So we're excited about that. We're confident in these recommendations. Here's the Ruffner.
Here's your numbers. There are 781,38 students who currently reside in the Ruffner and TWP
boundaries, 781.
3,575. That is the number of students who are projected to attend Ruffner and
TWP in 2023-24, looking at when this conversion would take place. That's the live
if and current and the attend projected, just to use the right nomenclature here.
Your current capacity at Ruffner is just under 1200 capacity. What that means is that depending
on if you're looking at the projections of who will attend the two schools at present,
which is Ruffner and TWP, being 575, or who lives there currently, which is 781, you
You have anywhere between 412 and 618 additional seats available at Ruffner to be utilized for
a theme or choice program to bring students in, diversify, better utilize the facility.
That is plenty of space.
Caveat.
You could conceivably change the capacity of Ruffner in depending upon the program
theme selected.
If, for example, you would do like a visual-performing arts kind of approach, that requires some
big spaces that would gobble up some of that capacity.
STEM, you would probably want some like physics-like labs and robotics labs and things that could
gobble up some capacity.
How much?
Probably not more than about 200, realistically, as we look at it.
So, if you want to think about your min-max ranges here, realistically, you are going to
be above 400 plus 500 seats as you currently stand with that capacity, easy, because not
everybody who lives there now will live there a few years from now with redevelopment and
the attend projections reflect choice behavior.
So 500 is reasonable.
Let's say we knock it down to 100, 200.
You're still 300, 400 choice seats available at this school in 2023, really no matter how
you slice it.
So that is plenty of seats to bring students in.
Better utilize this facility, which is one of the two most underutilized facilities in
your division, and to provide choice.
So the idea in terms of the program development, and we can have Dr. Gibson go into further
detail later as you require, but looking at first, doing announcements of the school's
transition to a 3-8 school as we laid out in the 21 recommendations.
Formation of planning team and committees, this will be done with community engagement,
of course.
Public hearing and community input will go through a proposed timeline here in a minute.
Determination of the choice program along the way, that is not set, but that is
you've got plenty of time to do a thoughtful, engaged process to make that determination so that
it's done right and it actually does attract families because it's what they actually want.
The planning year would be 22 to 23 over this next year and presenting to the board finally
for a September 23 rollout of the new program at Ruffner.
Now pre-K, the strategy in these
These clusters, which I'm sure you're quite familiar with, are north-south, moving from
in a cluster one over the west to over the east in cluster four.
So I'm thinking about how these schools are sliced.
The strategy is to look at these slices of the division and to offer centralized and
distributed pre-K classroom environments for all kids so that there's access in multiple
different options there for kids.
So the idea is adding those five pre-K classrooms, as discussed in Monroe,
will add a high concentration of pre-K centers needed in cluster one.
And that, in addition to this, would have insulated to the plan,
but as communicated to me, Taylor will expand to at least one,
possibly two additional pre-K classrooms as well.
Again, we have the capacity, you have the program need, you fill it.
Now, the Lindenwood consolidation, Matt's going to go into some detail here
on the numbers, how to look at the maps you have pronounced in front of you.
We're going to take a couple slides to look at this in a couple ways.
Then I will talk about the facility itself and condition
and a little bit more detail there. But I'm going to turn it to Matt
who's going to walk you through this slide and the next.
Thank you, David. Good morning, everyone. Good to see you again.
David went through a lot of the details for
For the reasoning, as has been discussed previously with the consolidation of Lindenwood and talking
about the boundaries with Taylor and Willard, and I just wanted to go through first some
of the numbers and describe some of the boundary changes, and we have the GIS software available
too that we can pull up and look at the maps and numbers in more detail.
So we're looking at this slide.
You also have a larger printed version of just the map without sort of some of these other details,
so you can maybe see in a little bit more detail where the proposed boundary change areas are.
So with the current live-in at Lindenwood of 355,
Again, everybody that lives in that boundary regardless of which school they attend, we
would be looking at moving a smaller portion of that boundary to Taylor Elementary that
is 76 K through 5 students and looking on this map that is the area that is on the
side of Church Street and also kind of the neighborhood around the current
Lindenwood Elementary Zone.
And then the remainder of that current Lindenwood
boundary would be the 245 K through 5 students in areas that are on the east
side of Church Street not including the area around the school and then all of
the area north of the Lafayette River.
So if you're looking at this map,
the green outlines are kind of the current boundaries.
So if you look at Lindenwood,
you can kind of see that green outline around it
and then the areas on the east side of Church Street
and around Lindenwood would be proposed
to rezone to Taylor
and then everything else would be proposed
to rezone to Willard.
So as David mentioned, we have both of those facilities at Low Utilization, again based
on students residing in the boundary, 64% at Taylor, 67% at Willard.
So with those re-zonings, we would increase that live-in at Taylor to 393 or 79%, but
But also knowing that currently there are 25 students from that zone attending choice
schools like ADL, Crossroads, Ghent, and with the projected enrollment decline, we would
expect that number to be lower.
And also at Willard with the increase from the Lindenwood area, looking at the new
who live in of 799, which is a high number at 96% utilization,
but again, with projected enrollment decline and over 75 students
currently attending those choice schools, ADL, Crossroads and Ghent,
probably looking at a live-in number closer to,
an attend number closer to 700 or below.
And in looking at the changes to the SES or the percentage economically disadvantaged,
the Lindenwood zone is currently 73% economically disadvantaged,
37% at Taylor, 57% at Willard.
So this boundary shift and consolidation would improve those demographics at Taylor.
We currently have a district-wide average at the elementary of 61%,
so it would increase it from 37% at Taylor to 45%,
and from 57% to 62%.
So bringing both of those numbers closer to the district average.
I should also mention with the boundary change,
one of the major considerations was the elementary to middle school feeder pattern.
So in looking at, you know, the areas we propose to move to Taylor.
So currently Lindenwood feeds into Blair Middle School,
Norview Middle School, and Azalea Gardens.
It's part of that area of Azalea Gardens that's detached from its main boundary.
So the areas that would be
Second move from Lindenwood to Taylor. That follows along with the Blair middle school zone.
So everyone that moved from Lindenwood to Taylor would all feed 100% with the Taylor students
to Blair. So we didn't want to add in a middle school split at Taylor. And then the remaining
Lindenwood to Willard students would keep their same middle school boundaries with everything
on the west side of Tidewater Drive going to Norview along with the current
Willard foundry and again keeping that area on the east side of Tidewater
excuse me going to Azalea Gardens and
this map just same numbers detail and
everything we just wanted to kind of highlight the areas that were changing
And
I will just flip over real quick to our GIS software here.
It's pretty much everything that I just described there.
Some of these layers on so you can see kind of the change areas along with the middle school boundaries.
So again, these are the current Taylor in the yellow along with the green outline, Lindenwood
and kind of the light green and Willard in this lighter brown.
And if we turn on the middle school layer here, those are those blue outlines.
So this kind of area around here is the Blair Middle School Zone.
And if we turn on what the proposed boundaries would be,
you can see here that then this new Taylor boundary,
which would be this, you know, new yellow color,
would align with this Blair boundary.
And again, the rest on the east side of Tidewater
would move to Willard and would continue.
Willard currently all feeds a hundred percent into Norview and then we'd be
keeping that sort of detached Azalea Garden Zone with the students on the
east side of Tidewater remaining in the Azalea Garden Zone.
Madam Chair,
may I just ask a question while they're on the GIS map? Do you have a
that just shows the middle school attendant zones as it currently exists.
Without, kind of as a color rather than an outline?
Yeah, just the...
Yeah, give me one second here.
Would you like me to zoom out kind of to the district?
Yeah, it's possible to just see them all if it doesn't get too small.
There we go.
So do you want me to describe the different zones?
If you would, please.
blue here is the Blair Zone. Down here we have the Southside Stem Campus, Campus Della
K8 Zone. Over here is the, this light green is the Lake Taylor K-8 Zone. This light yellow
or tan color is the Norview Middle School Zone. This light blue in the north is the
north side middle school zone, and then we have the Azalea Garden Zone, which is this
light red over here in the northeast, and also this section in the Lindenwood and Coleman
Place area that attends there as well.
Generally speaking, in your expertise and experience, what determines the zone?
So is it distance, you know, x number of miles from a school that serves y number of children?
What kind of, as you're describing this, what's the philosophy behind what makes a zone?
So for example, in this map, we see with the Blair Tender Zone,
it's a contiguous north-south boundary on the western side of the city.
We don't see a similar contiguous zone that big.
I guess Norview is kind of close with the split that you show in the middle.
But just from a, I don't know if it's a best practice or science
or however you all generally look at attendance zones in this way,
what is it that you're trying to achieve in terms of what makes an appropriate zone?
Sure. So, I mean typically it's a balance of, like anything, a balance of a lot of different factors.
The size of the school, you know, building an attendance zone that can reasonably support the capacity
and have an operable utilization.
Elementary school feeders, and that's been part of our work with the school division as well,
and was a consideration when looking at the Lindenwood consolidation,
you know, trying as much as possible when making adjustments, to have whole elementary
schools feed into the middle school at the next level.
And then certainly distance to facility would always be a consideration as well as demographics.
But you know, knowing that there's a lot of things in consideration, but at times
those might butt heads with each other, as far as demographics versus proximity to school
or things of that nature.
Respecting natural boundaries, another one looking at, of course.
Respecting natural boundaries, geography, major roads.
Being compact and contiguous is a standard thing to look at, but again, as Matt said,
But these are all factors that are, in some cases, at tension with each other.
We have inherited geography that we can't change.
We have inherited decisions from 40, 50, 60 years ago in our neighborhoods that we can't
change in a heartbeat, but we can change them over time.
And so when we look at that, that's where you're having a split boundary, an example in this case, is a reaction to there are some things going on in natural compact boundaries, fitting enrollments that we want to push against.
And so that's where these came. But again, it's a, as Matt said, it's a tension of factors that goes into it.
to follow up on that. Mr Jordan, do you recall because I don't in looking at the map? Do you
recall how Linden would ended up being zoned for Azalea?
That I mean to me that really stands
out on this map. Yeah, actually, a lot of this actually pulled my folder. And so back
when we were dealing with the middle school busing and they described these same things,
feeder patterns and so forth. So as was just mentioned, you know, part of what is hidden
under this are these institutional decisions that were made around race and massive resistance
and so forth. So as we, you know, in the 80s when the school board decided to
re-segregate the elementary schools, it created these, we used to call them,
they re-segregate or re-segregate? Re-segregate, right. It created these, I
think it was 10 at the time, we used to call them community schools. Dr.
Herman Clark used to be in charge of the community schools and then the school
board in 2000 reneged on its promise not to re-segregate the middle schools but
he did it anyway and so as a result of that then the some of these boundaries
changed and that's how Lindenwood changed if you're at if you lived in
Young Park at one time used to go to Ocean View Elementary School so a lot
of the those decisions that were made were based upon those decisions and so
actually when we first started talking about doing it planning you know as two
things we were really trying to achieve which wasn't on the original slide one
was improving academic outcomes based upon research and then the other was
trying to write the ship to start you know as was just mentioned we went through
this 50-year process of doing attendant zones off of racism basically and so we
were trying to reset it around the concept of being the cornerstone of a
probably diverse community. Can you repeat that second part? Which part? When we
We started the ad planning off of trying to have improved student outcomes based upon
academic research and then to shift the tide away from attendance zones based upon racism
but attendance zone based upon north of believing that diversity was a strength and that we
could be a probably diverse community.
Go
ahead.
Okay.
Next slide is the roughener if you want me to describe that.
Oh yeah, sure, go ahead.
Oops, I clicked from the beginning rather than current.
Okay, so those were the maps and numbers detailing the
Lindenwood consolidation and the impacts on Taylor and Willard.
And then also, as David mentioned,
we are going to consolidate Tidewater Park.
that building is going to be taken over by the city in the 2023-24 school year.
And the recommendation again was to convert Ruffner, you know, a building that
is less than 50% utilized even in terms of the students that just reside in
the zone to a 3-8 building again using the next school year for planning a
a theme school and offering division-wide choice seats.
So in the 2023-24 school year,
we would basically move the students
that reside within the PB Young Tidewater Park Zone,
the third through fifth grade students
to the Ruffner Building,
leaving PB Young open as a pre-K too.
And looking at the numbers, 571 currently reside
within the Ruffner attendance zone as a six through eight school.
And with the addition of the three through five students,
that number would increase to 781.
We're still only 65% utilization.
Like David was talking about,
maybe that capacity number decreases a little bit
depending on what the theme school offering is,
But also knowing that with the redevelopment in the area and the projected enrollment decline that that number of students residing within the boundary likely would be lower.
And also of the three through eight students that live within the new attendance boundary, we have over 80 currently attending choice schools, ADL, Crossroads, Ghent, or Rosemont.
Looking from economically disadvantaged, again, that would increase the number, the percentage
residing within that Ruffner boundary from a current of 85% to a new number of 88%,
but we'd be looking at offering choice seats to help diversify that school.
One other thing to note while we were talking about middle schools and feeder patterns,
there is a portion of the current PB Young Tidewater Zone.
I think it's the portion north of Princess Anne that currently feeds into Blair.
So I think when we're using this planning year, looking at options of would we rezone that area to Taylor
so that those students would continue to feed into Blair,
you know, not go from Pee Young to Ruffner for 3rd through 5th grade,
and then move to Blair at 6th grade while everyone else remains
at the Ruffner School in 6th grade, or potentially
changing the Blair Ruffner Middle School zones that all of those
students would attend at Ruffner 3 through 8.
Can I just ask a technical question?
On the columns for the data that we have where it shows the 21-22 live-in, that's as of what date?
That's as of September 2021.
And so is everything we're looking at in terms of living enrollment as of the September 30th date?
Correct, yep.
And that's the official file that we get from the district every year that we are planning,
but knowing that there's been shifts since that time.
Yeah, well, that's, you know, the reason why I ask is, you know, especially in the top
when we talk about any impact on tired with a part, children are moving and being moved
all the time. And so my question was on your with your GIS mapping, do you have something
that shows where the children are. We used to get maps that would show the, I see it
in some places where you have the dots, but do you have anything that shows the
current location of children who are attending or either used to attend
Tide Ward or where they attend now? So we don't have that specifically because
Because we have those student points, but again those are based on addresses as of September.
If we were to get a new student file and address match those, we could see in that area that's
redeveloping whatever the number was then and compare it to what it is now and look
at the student ID numbers that lived there then that aren't there now and see if they're
in the district or what other attendance boundary they might be residing in now, but that's
not something we currently have.
Because at least in theory, the city, the school system, and the housing authority are
tracking that monthly.
So being able to have that, I think, is helpful and also would help to give us some indication
of when we're talking about utilization at Rothner or any other recommendation that is in that St. Paul's area,
what is being predicted in terms of children who were moved and children who had come back.
Because I had mentioned before that in that St. Paul's census tract area,
that's the largest concentration of children in comparison to adults in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. So we're talking about you know two thousand some
children in a unique situation and so I think we should make sure we're clear
on what's happening with those children and how those children are going to
fare every time we talk about this proposal and yeah and we've we've
done a couple different calls with with Dennis and Rick and people with
the city about the plans and when different, the phasing out of that area and when things
are happening and like you said they have been putting together some numbers, I just
don't have that present.
Do you have the planning area maps met, what we, the elementary planning zones in there
or just the static image?
Might have it.
I would have to, I can get to it.
They're in that large report, I think.
We can just go to that. We can leave it here.
When we were looking at the area redevelopment,
what's surrounding capacity available and those kinds of things,
when we were developing the recommendations by elementary zone,
we looked at them by geography and feeder as we've talked about.
And so down around where we are right now,
Jay Cox and Ruffner and PB Young and Tidewater,
for example, that we had all together as a group.
And this area right here where Ruffner is in Tidewater,
PB Young has the highest concentration of poverty
in the elementary zone,
81% FRL, according to the stats we were using,
and 81% utilization overall, but it's mismatched, right?
You have the most underutilized school in the district, too, are Ruffner and Monroe, okay?
So Ruffner highly underutilized, but in good condition, right?
And surrounding the highest percentage of concentration of poverty.
And then just a little bit on the west there,
where we had Monroe, Lindenwood, Taylor as an elementary zone.
You have the most capacity, the lowest utilization rate at your elementary schools,
of 59% so really highly underutilized with the highest leave rate,
22% opting out of their choice boundary amongst the elementary zones
with 58% for your reduced lunch.
So a significant drop in FRL, a significant drop in utilization, even with some underutilization
here, and a significant increase in opting out in choice.
So part of the idea is when we're looking at drawing the boundaries and moving it a
little bit west and north, Willard-Taylor, increasing that diversity, addressing that
historic underutilization, there is plenty of room to grow this way.
When you go a little bit on the east to Coleman Place, Sherwood Forest, Ingleside in that area,
we only have one school that's under 80%. On the net, you're fairly comfortable in utilization.
There's a little room for growth, not as much, but there is some.
And then heading north up as Willard being one of the most underutilized schools as well.
So we don't have right now all the data about where people are choosing out.
We can look at that. In the surrounding area, given the overall demographics, we're quite comfortable with we have room.
I don't think room is our challenge. It's where do we best utilize the space that we have strategically in drawing the boundaries.
So just sort of geographically, that was sort of the overlay is looking at these schools, not just in isolation,
but how do they relate to the capacities and conditions
of their neighboring schools of similar configuration
to make sure that it all works together?
Dr. Gabriel, did you have a question?
I did.
So the data that you're using for the live-in and tenant zone,
is that just data that we have of students
who have registered with Norfolk Public Schools?
So that does not account for private school?
It does not.
Or home school?
No, and you know we have Christ the King, Norfolk Christian, Norfolk collegiate, lots that are all in that area.
And you're right. The area, I mean the decline in the district and the division's enrollment has outpaced the decline in the school age population as a whole.
That's a choice.
And that's a...
We need to get them something to cheer us into is the idea here.
And so that goals up.
So what are the academic programs that make sense?
Well, first of those programs need to have a home.
Okay?
So where it has to have a good conditioning facility.
Ruffner fits the bill.
It has to have space to bring in choice.
Ruffner fits the bill.
And now it's a matter of now there's let's take that next year plus to do a deep dive
And so that program isn't something that we sort of knee-jerk put out there and sort of a frantic attempt to get kids
But is a thoughtful deliberate process unto itself
To define what is a demand program in this area? How would it fit because we have the right home? We think
Yeah
So I appreciate all the information that has been provided here, so within some of the context
of what we've been talking about, how do we also consider the choice programs that we
already have in place. And for instance, I'm thinking about Southside STEM
Academy, the K8, which, you know, how could we create more choice there? Do we
need to look at ADL? Do we need to look at Ghent, both of which have probably some
of the lowest economically disadvantaged students and also to really give a holistic look at
how can we create even more diversity and create more opportunities where our schools are in
high demand with thematic programs.
Like if you're talking about Ruffner, you know, a 3-8, like one thing I would like
to know is how are our 3-8s doing?
Like are we achieving what we had set out to achieve
with that program?
With Rosemount, with all of our specialty programs
and our choice schools, like are we achieving what we set
out to achieve both in terms of enrollment,
in terms of programmatic offering?
We also have the Lake Taylor School K-8 which, you know,
also has a thematic program there.
Like, you know, I feel like we need to really look at it holistically.
And if we're going to create a strong academic program at Ruffner,
I think we also need to look at how we're doing at the other schools
in all that we're trying to achieve in terms of socioeconomic diversity
and academic programming.
And that leads me to the next piece is, you know,
One of the things Mr. Jordan highlighted
was the aim of this planning work
was to improve academic outcomes
based on academic research.
And then I think about grade configuration.
We know what our academic data tells us
about how our middle school students are performing.
Is a six, eight model the right model?
Do we need to look at more K-8s?
Do we need to look at a seven, 12 model?
Do we need, are there different grade configurations
that we should be considering?
And some of the things we talked about the other night, you know, we talked about, you
know, what we consistently see at sixth grade and at ninth grade, you know, the academic
performance of our students, you know, how do we provide all the other necessary supports?
So I would like, you know, some consideration on the grade level configurations also.
So there's a lot of that, like I would like for the board and for us to have this discussion
as we continue.
Yeah.
I think that's the right discussion.
When we look at this, this came up when we were looking at the implementation plan
moving this forward on the configuration discussion.
And what I related and from my experiences, I was asked this question by a client in
Alaska actually in 2015. And so we did a year-long study, a survey of research. I did not perform
independent research, but did a survey of the research on essentially what the question
was. Elemiddle configuration, some K8283818, kind of thing, versus 6.8. And the question
for them was, where did we put our sixth graders? As they were looking at a next round
of capital planning, they wanted to align that with an academic plan for configuration.
And where the survey that we did and where the district landed was keeping the elementary,
the sixth graders in an elementary setting as the proponents of research we were looking
at is the elemental configuration provided a net positive on the whole.
There are caveats to boot in this because a well-done program in any configuration,
Trump's a poorly done program in any configuration, right?
Operations are a distinct question. How you do it matters.
The general trade-offs, as I've seen it, is the 6-8 configuration concentrates resources
for our middle schoolers in terms of specialization of program and extracurricular activities.
If there's a critical mass of students is the next caveat, right? You've got to have enough kids.
However, it also concentrates these kids who are at a very similar and challenging point in their life,
having kids of my own, knowing that, to put them all together.
And part of looking at the survey of research on elemental configurations is that it delutes
it dilutes that concentration of need
of all the same kids at the same time, essentially,
and provides those kids a chance to be not just the runt,
not just the in between, but the big kid
to the little kids.
It spreads it out.
It creates mentor-mentee relationship opportunities
that don't exist when you have narrow cohort bands.
And so that is, we hypothesize as part of
the probable rationale as to why
You look at behavior incidents and elementals, like-to-like comparisons there tend to be positive that we saw implication.
Again, when we look at the academic outcomes based on the data that we do have in hand, we looked at accreditation status and tier status.
The schools that you mentioned are at the top tier accreditation, tier one.
Where we have the lowest tier accreditation status has to do with our schools that are the smallest and under resourced.
And so that was sort of in the backdrop of looking, well, what is working?
Well, there's a demand, obviously.
On the data that we have, it appears to be working.
We have the necessity to address the enrollment underutilization,
decline, concentration of poverty.
We have those things in the background.
So that's where is the 3-8 model typical in many districts?
Not necessarily, but are elemental?
Yes, particularly in urban districts that have since declined.
And that has been a strategy for other large urban's around who had their heights of population in the 80s
and has since just been declining through sort of stagnant to now declining, to now redeveloping, and now it's a trend.
And you've got all the surplus capacity that's 60 years old, what do you do with it?
And lo and behold, these elemental configurations, whereas some might find scary of my second grade daughter,
next to the big, bad, seventh grade boy, on the flip side, what we hear anecdotally in
sea and research is that there is big brother, big sister opportunities which not don't
just benefit the littles but benefit the bigs because now they have a leadership role.
Again that has to be intentionally baked into the culture, the program has to be
thought out well, and since I'm on a bit of a soapbox here for a minute, I'll keep
going.
Part of where I've seen it go poorly with school districts is divisions, is where choice
is thrown out in a near panic kind of mode to try to stem people choosing out.
We've got to offer choice, because the charters are offering choice.
The privates are offering choice.
We've got to choice this, choice this, choice this.
But unless there is the strategy, capacity, and resources behind it to make it a viable choice,
it's just a branding exercise. And that's thin, and that's seen as thin, and it doesn't work.
And so part of the idea here, too, is let's not – we defined the direction that's going to go
based on the data that we have to provide the best outcome for students as we see it
given all the factors we have. We think we have that here.
Now the specifics, that takes time, that takes an intentional process, and we've got time.
We're not doing this overnight.
So this is part of the idea.
Let's set out those questions that you asked about the program, viability, and so forth.
We think we have a configuration that fits, and we think that there's enough research behind it to support that.
Now let's do a deep dive into how to make it real.
Dr. Alson, go ahead.
Yes, in line with my colleague Basin's point is that I do think that what we have is a
very thought out plan and kind of ideal, but I think we have to put in the realities in
it also.
And I think that may take the time that we're talking about.
I mean, like configurations, grays we want, because even in our discussion, Dr. Burr
something about transition points. There are systems that have fourth grade
centers, sixth grade centers, ninth grade centers because they know those are those
points that actually have centers. So fourth graders go to this school to
transition them for fifth year from middle school in their sixth grade
centers. So I do think we need to talk about very specific details about
configurations because I do think some of this is ideal you know and it
kind of fits for what we are what we're trying to do holistically but I
I do think we need to dig in to see what really works for us
with some of the configurations.
So I do think there needs to be a little more talk
and dialogue and vetting and looking at data to figure out,
okay, what do we really want to do here?
But I do like the big plan,
but I do think we got to drill into some of the details
about what works best for Norfolk
and what we need, you know, specifically.
Do we want fourth grade centers?
Like, okay, maybe that's what we need to be qualitative.
We do need to have a fourth grade center.
Maybe we do have a ninth grade.
You know, so those kinds of things,
I do think we've got to talk out a little more.
And what we already have, and what is the data telling us, K8 schools, is that really
what, is it really working for us, do we need to maybe really think about how we want, you
know, so I do like for us to kind of think and drill a little more in that area.
But I do like the big picture piece, but I think we've got to be more than a big picture,
of course.
We do, and I'll tell you, we do tend to be more of a picture, you're right.
And part of it, it's always this, but not that conversation.
We want this, but we don't want these challenges to come with it.
Centers.
The districts that I work with that do centers, and I've had centers,
when there is an opportunity to get out of them, most do.
Part of the challenge with the centers approach is not only does it
sort of more hyperbolically concentrate those kids' needs in a sort of a narrow swim lane there,
and there's not much opportunity, you know, intergenerational.
But it provides another transition.
And one thing that is without question in research about what's best for kids
is that when you add transitions, it's a pain point.
It's a ding.
It sets kids back, and the rationals are fairly intuitive.
It's the relationship.
You know, they're in one place for one year,
maybe two, and there's just not that relationship capital built up.
Then they break the ones that are starting to go to another one in a new environment,
and these are adult student and student student.
And so that's part of, you know, in looking at these more extended configurations,
part of the theory as to why they work for kids who are particularly in high concentrations of poverty,
Again, when you normalize for other factors and all that kind of good stuff, is the relationships.
You're known for a long period of time.
When they break that and break it again, it creates more of that isolation effect.
The divisions that I work with try to get out of that when they can.
I rarely advocate for a concentrated centers approach with the exception of moving into
some cases of a practical school within a school model where there is the
opportunities for intergenerational mingling that is strategic and thought
out, but there is also the opportunities to have your corner in your home, your
neighborhood amongst the other group. So I would strongly advocate against going
towards that kind of very narrow center's approach. I am quite comfortable with the idea
of an Ella middle configuration can be done well. I'm comfortable with the data that you
are on the net. It is an attractive option for your families and it seems to be doing
fairly well, specifically when you relate that to some of these present situations
that the kids are in. The particulars, what program, what is offered, when is it offered?
What are the specialties of the program? I couldn't pretend to define that right now.
Go ahead, Mr. Clinton and then Ms. Basine.
Thank you, Dr. Martin. I'm really enjoying the conversation about this particular piece here
and it kind of goes back to our meeting.
We can move and configure all these things here
but then there's that other component there, which is the professional development piece
that I was taking it out and so that was kind of you answered it when you said
the school within the school and that's making sure that our we can put whatever
building we can send kids whoever we want to but at the end of the day it's
what's happening inside those school buildings and so it's that planning
piece and then it made me kind of think about we always hear Southside
STEM Academy I think we're doing a great job now and getting us back to
where we need to be but that was a plan that really didn't have a good
plan we kind of did you like you said it was the marketing and put it
out there but it's like how do we draw kids because I was hearing the other
piece about you know when we look at ADL and you look at um get you know why
kids are going there and not necessarily as we wanted to make this big
choice school opportunity in Southside it didn't happen yeah and so it goes back
to that that particular planning piece and making sure that the program is
attractive and it's it's in there what I'm seeing here so far particularly for
For me, looking at Lindenwood and looking at what you have here, there's no doubt that
it's an older facility, it's now we've torn down some things there, but it always goes
back and I agree when I hear some of my colleagues talk about the diversification and moving
our kids around because I've benefited from that.
I was a kid who product in North Republic schools, but I grew up in Lambert's Pointing
Park Place and because when I was in Lambert's Pointing in the elementary school, literally
38th Street was a divider and we lived on 38th and Elkhorn and so my
kindergarten through second grade I went to Larchmont and because we moved to
Bolton Ferry Road which is literally on the other side that's when I got the
notification over the summer that I was going to Taylor and so I was like okay
so now we're going to Taylor Elementary School then I went to Blair and then
I went to Maureen and so when I look up that makeup you know I didn't go to
booktier I didn't go to Norby or some of the other kids though there were
kids a couple blocks down and went to Granby and went to other places, it really goes back
to this intentional effort to try to ensure that there was diversification of the experience.
I mean I was around a lot of military kids and it opened my eyes up from what was not
necessarily in my neighborhood, but it really created that mix.
So anytime that I see that, I know it because I experienced it and I went through it.
I'm going to support that because I know that it's something that's going to be
beneficial to all of our students.
And so when I see that here, where we're looking at Lindenwood
as an opportunity to diversify what
is considered a high concentration of poverty,
but to open eyes and to be able to get students to intermingle
with other students of socioeconomic and within
other communities, I think it just
helps the overall, also, the impression
of Norfolk Public Schools.
And when I say the impression piece,
it's that we, that's one of the things
that I'll just leave it here,
that many individuals who do get into
Norfolk Public Schools talks about the
wealth of opportunities and the
experiences and so many different things
that we offer our kids, I think that
this gives us an opportunity to do that
to continue to keep that mix going.
I like what I see so far.
I'm definitely all about continuation
of conversation, but then I also want
to kind of, my mind was like, it's
a piece that's happening and we do
a thing of job around professional development
that's, I mean, we are known for that,
But I think that when we talk about this educational planning piece here,
this definitely goes leaning back on to our professional staff.
And can we have the school within the school and create some of those additional opportunities?
I think in response to that though, all the schools that you went to are still in the same proximity.
So I don't see someone going from Lambert's Point to Southside.
like that's a much farther place to have to travel.
Not a lot of families are going to want to or be able to do that.
So I think that still is a consideration as well.
But go ahead, Ms. Bessine.
I was just going to follow up.
So I was just thinking about that conversation about proximity.
And when you talk about all the students
that we know do choice out for whatever reason,
they travel far to go to the program. I mean you know and Southside STEM you know
I think we have this perception that going over the bridge it's far and you
know I think the distance where I you know where I personally travel for my
kids and to there it's it's about the same and you know with our specialty
programs you know some families travel even further further than that so it's
It's all about demand and what that school and that program's offering for the student.
But I wanted to get back to, so when I look at the Rupner, Kate, and I see the live-in
economically disadvantaged going up to 88% and I think about a comment, you know, one
or one of the comments Mr. Jordan made about where the students that were in Tidewater Park,
where they then went to, if they remained in Norfolk, what school they currently are attending,
and do they have the opportunity to come back as part of this redevelopment process?
Are they getting the option to come back and will they come back?
and I think that depending on you know a lot of factors but if the school I think
could be an attractive piece and would also help to bring families back because
we all know that we we look at the school in our area when we make
decisions about where we want to live like how what is the anticipated
hated projection, should we say some percentage of those students do return back into the area?
I know that's a really hard, hard prediction to make, but if we were to think, okay, of
those that remained in Norfolk, like we know they stayed in Norfolk for whatever reason
and they're, they want, you know, do we know if they would, I think they did a survey
to see how many would like to come back and maybe using that as some sort of a proxy to
suggest how many might come back. Interesting question. When we look at that,
what we, our method that we chose for this was to use the current live-in and plan according
So it suggests that the model is that if we keep them all, this is what we've got.
And predicting how many you're going to choice back in, I would be probably a little suspect
of what people say they would do because of all of the factors that can interfere with
that decision in the years to come before it actually does.
So this is our denominator.
This is how many kids live in.
This is how a breakdown is and the truth is you have your highest concentration
poverty at PB Young and Tidewater right there. That's it and so you know the
fact that we you know you mentioned it like hey we're gonna I'm gonna bring my
kid to where the best program is. Distance is off factor but it's not it
matters less the better the program for my kid so that's like let's get this
program right you know we got the space we got the good building we got
the good space we can do it we can bring diversity to our highest
concentration of poverty while bringing a quality program. Let's do it.
Right, but I guess the other the other piece of it which I think when we think about
I think the plans were in place two administrations ago, and then we tried to whittle in choice seats
where we could in 2016. We tried to fit some choice seats, which obviously not at that,
not
management planning team had desired about having more choice seats at that school.
That's what I'm talking about.
And I say, looking back at the programs that we already have in place, creating more choice
there, but also if we're going to be deliberate about creating socioeconomic diversity, we
would have to also have in place policies around how we manage that, right?
And not just there, of course, across any of our choice programs, which is why I feel
like I need to look at ADL and Crossroads and Ghent, really Ghent and even what are the
opportunities at the Lake Taylor School for that choice?
We had conversations where Ingleside parents wanted to have the opportunity to remain
at Lake Taylor School.
So how do we, so I'm just, I know I'm stating what I've already stated before, but.
No, that's the right question.
I see concern when I see 88%.
Sure, sure.
And that's, and that's, and that's, you know, that is a factor of that super
concentration of poverty at that, you know, K-5 feeder between the two schools.
That's what that is.
Right.
And, you know, one of the differences here, when we looked at this option,
and I know Dr. Bird's trying to jump in here, we looked at this option,
we looked at, oh what would a K-8 look like?
Well, a K-A would bring in PB young, and in the math works, you could do it.
You could fit them at the school, but you would have no choice seats, and so you would
be concentrating that poverty, and so we went away from that for that reason.
I was going to share that.
That's exactly what I wanted to share.
You had a few questions, concerns, and I probably will forget some of them, but
But I'm going to try to address the concern about the 88 percent.
This for the administration, this has been a very, very complex issue.
We have gone back and forth to several different models, several different ways of looking
at ensuring that we were making sure that number one, academic outcomes is, you know,
certainly the priority for us but we know the board one of the goals is to ensure
that we don't have a high concentration of poverty in our schools so that was
something that we were looking at and so when we looked at Ruffner and converting
that we went back from a 3-8 to a K-8 back to a 3-8 and the reason we landed
it on the 3-8 is because of the 88% of the children coming from households with low income.
We wanted to be intentional about having a strategy such that we could create programming
that would excite our community that anyone in every family in Northrop Public Schools
that had a child in you know third grade through eighth grade would be excited to have their children
enroll in this school and so we if we have the time if we if we can be thoughtful and
we will have time to do that if the board decides to go in this direction but we want to have some
solid programming to excite families so they will enroll their children we were concerned
about the 88 percent but we do believe that we could attract some other families to the
schools. That was to the school. That was very, very important to us. We initially
thought about the K-8 piece. We threw that around a bit. We also talked about
South Side STEM Academy and already having a K-8 on the south side of town.
And we just, we knew that we had to have some choice seats and we needed to
intentional about that. And if the program ended up being a K-8 program, we wouldn't
be able to do that. And so we know that by having this configuration at least early on,
that doesn't mean that we don't keep studying the program, looking at our numbers, of course
making it better, improving every year. If we get to a point where we believe that we
can open up more seats or open up a K-8 program and have the school within the school. We'll
do that, but we weren't sure we would be able to get the choice seats that we needed. And
I think that's what happened at Southside STEM. And so we're trying to be very intentional
about making sure we have enough room to grow and then also having the time to evaluate
and make adjustments along the way.
Just look at, if we did simple math here, let's say we reduced Ruffner's capacity to
a thousand because of the program use.
The elementary average FRL percentage is 61%.
You'd need 390 kids choosing in to meet that elementary average, it's a little higher
in middle school, but you get just rough numbers, right?
You've got seats to do it.
So you've got the opportunity.
It's a matter of seizing it and doing it strategically.
Go ahead, Ms. Kampson.
Trying to talk over that.
Sorry, everyone, I seem to be having a little bit of that.
You have some problems today.
The employee microphone closed you.
That probably would help, too.
OK.
And I'm sorry I missed a little part,
so I hope I'm not being repetitious on anything.
But this is what I always look at, too,
when we're talking about choice seats and diversity is we don't put it together to attract.
I was, I share my age, was there when we opened Ghent.
And Ghent was opened and it was in the middle of Crosstown busing.
And so basically all the Crosstown busing was on, as I'm sure everyone knows, was
on the east side.
The west side schools were not bused.
And so they were trying to figure out a way to make it work on the west side without the bussing piece.
How can they move the schools together? The schools are all kind of close anyway.
So what the thought was, I think, of course I was involved in this, but what the thought appeared to be was,
Gint was opened to service East Gint, which was then in the middle of transformation, and Park Place.
All right? Right, Park Place. That's across the railroad track, right, right there. Okay.
Notice how close they are to what that would do with the busing. Very, very close.
And so what happened, though, of course, was East Gint parents were not interested in having their kids go to that school.
they wanted them to stay at Taylor. And so the city backed down. And so Kent was
sitting there with Park Place there and I looked at them and then they went to
East Ocean View to the Pretty Lake School, which is now gone, which was a K to
2 school. And so they did that busing configuration. And so when Crosstown
She was
tough, but she wanted to have a plan to get, there were no kids early in the school
and they were sending all the special needs children there, but no regular kids.
She came up with a plan that we now see in place, which is the K-8 plan.
She put K-8 in that school, and I was leaving by then, but they were adding it sixth
grade one year, seventh grade and eighth grade, and that was our first K-8 school, and so in
a place that they couldn't get anyone to go to, that all the people that lived around them,
a nice big new building, didn't want to go there. Now they're fighting for seats again,
and it was the theme that she came up with was, let's make a K-8 school, because, sorry,
because parents didn't really want their kids to go to the middle schools. Let's
be honest, the middle school is for rough. They wanted their kids to stay there. And
by adding that one idea that no one else had had in Norfolk, it's one of the most popular
schools to get your kid in. People were beating at the door. They brought trailers in and
took away the track in the back of the school. So when we talk about this and it's come
up, we really did need to focus on that. When they were doing thematic schools in
the 90s and Ocean View was designated to be a maritime school, but we put that program
into place and the kids were out doing all that water stuff and laying down at washers
and cleaning them and we didn't have any choice seats at Ocean View and people were coming
in with all kinds of ways to justify the fact that they needed to transfer there.
Oh, I drive by there on my way to work, which I didn't bother me any if I have
a seat because I think there should be choice. I'm a choice. I think you should be able to
have places you can go to if you don't want to be at your home school. But anyway, and
that built, I mean, our enrollment went up and we had people pounding on the door saying,
please, we're demanding that we be allowed because we live for the maritime. It really,
it was that we're doing interesting things. So anyway, I just wanted us to keep that
in mind, we could put anything anywhere, but will they come?
We had a wonderful arts program at Booker T, which we did not fund, we did not take care
of, we did not caress, and so what happened?
The program started declining because people weren't choosing to go there because they
weren't seeing the results of that program.
And that's what we have to do.
I think that that's something that needs to always be in front.
We can sit here and plan all kinds of choices and stuff, and nobody's going to show up.
We really need to be very, very thoughtful.
What will make them come?
I mean, here we had, at Ruffner, had the Young Scholars Program, and I don't know if anyone
remembers me talking about that program that passed with the gifted department because
I was not happy that I could not get my kids in it.
And because no one, they didn't care where it was,
they wanted their kids in the young scholars program.
And for some reason, it's now not even at the school anymore.
So that was a big influx of kids coming in there.
Very smart kids.
And someone said, well, the principal
doesn't want to have any more of the kids there
than I'm thinking.
Why not?
They're all bright and I don't know.
So anyway, just kind of keep it in mind as we move
that we need to be very thoughtful about what is going to be the thing that people are going to want.
What's going to be there for them?
And then they'll come and it won't matter what race they are, what economic place they sit.
It's what they see as a great choice for their children.
I think that's why Granby's so full, is because it has the IB program.
And people want their kids in the IB program.
Oh, they have the G.
Yeah, yeah.
I thought it was the main program.
Yeah, but that's what brings some of those things.
And not some little cutesy thing that we like.
We need to really be very thoughtful about every single one of these things that we're talking about choice.
And we need to give choice seats.
We didn't.
We're the choice seats at STEM.
They're locked out and nobody else can have those seats.
It's a choice seat.
I mean, I mean, we don't want to take anyone from the neighborhood out, but we need to put more choice seats in there if we want kids to go.
Go ahead, Mr. Jordan.
I have some more technical questions, but just in reference to a couple of things that was recently mentioned.
So against school, there also was intentionality by the principal to have a racially socioeconomically diverse school.
And racially and socially economically diverse school to the point where the city attorney
threatened or told the principal that she had to stop being intentional in her assignment.
So once they reached their diversity level, if an African American student left, then they
would replace the African-American student with another African-American student, or
if a low-income student left, they would replace that person. And, you know, in our
know-for-culture, we told the school system, well, you have to start doing that,
even though it was having all the success that it had. So there's
still these underlying practices that I think is important, that as a board
and as an administration, we need to be clear on, even as people talk about
Southside Stem. So what the Board approved and what was implemented aren't the same thing.
So the Southside Stem choice seats came about in part because some employee decided that
the attendant zone, that the default attendant zone for Southside Stem for children who
lived in that attendance zone was going to be Southside Stem and no Lake Taylor.
So what that did was that made the, that took away the choice.
So it came with the, and in terms of neighborhood school, and then when you look at even the
attendance today, that's where the, the overcrowding and other things occurred, because often
what will happen is, and this is just a general concern I am moving forward, is
is we make decisions and then, you know, politics and other biases, decisions, other things
happen when it comes to implementation. And then when we acknowledge that we made a mistake,
then we say we can't fix it. Which goes back to the technical questions I had. So, you
know, a long time ago when I got on the school board, we said that, you know, you
make decisions based upon personal antidote.
You make decisions based upon data.
Say that again.
So we have conversations about why parents choose to do what they do.
I guess my question for this team is, in what you've shared with us, did the steering committee get a chance to see this?
Have you spoken to any parents to get their input into or surveyed any parents to find out why the decisions that they're making,
So for example, my other question was, even when you are describing the meetings that you
have with the city, I'm going to ask Mr. Fraley or Dr. Burson, whoever is appropriate.
So when you all have those conversations, who's in the conversation?
Are there no residents that are in the conversation, are there just employees?
Is it a diverse group of individuals having the conversation?
because I have a concern that many concerns.
But one of the things that I think often occurs is these belief systems and attitudes and thoughts just pass on to become institutional.
And that you kind of start having conversations in a cocoon.
So, even as you talk about James Monroe, so, you know, there's a project being proposed
to be built at – we're going to want to convert the old part-place Methodist Church
at 34th and Colonial and build marker rate apartments.
There's other proposals that are on the table to do 50-60 unit apartment development
at 36 and Newport.
There's other initiatives that are being studied right now
in the Midtown area.
So one of the things that we've always talked about
when we first started this air planning
was trying to make sure that there is closer linkage
between what's happening in terms of city development,
as you all have described,
and how it impacts these decisions that are made.
I'm still trying to see to what extent that is actually occurring
and what live, real, actionable information is being fed into the system
so that you all have the benefit of what may be happening on the ground in the neighborhood
that unless you have some real familiarity with the neighborhood, you may not know.
And that even goes for city employees who may not have that good sense in that field.
So I just, you know, I really wanted to know about the engagement with the steering committee
and what efforts from June, I think it was when you did your last presentation there
in July, to where we are now in terms of how you all are engaging feedback from parents
and other community members who are actually making decisions and sending
their children to schools whether it's their neighborhood school because we
define what a neighborhood is and and or maybe choosing out as you described
why are they choosing out and what's really behind those decisions that then
will help us in terms of the ideas that we may have that could be
completely separate from the actual decisions that are families that are
choosing us, why they're choosing us, and the families that aren't choosing us, why
they aren't choosing us. So when the planning effort, the plan to create this,
these ideas, these recommendations between 19 and 2020, we had five
Steering Committee meetings, we had two rounds of community dialogues, three
meetings because we had two virtual meetings in April of 2021 and then the in-person in
March of 2020.
We did survey feedback.
We asked these questions about here's all the different options before we come up with
a recommended package, you know, options and the survey results, you know, for example,
we had two-to-one support for the rough nurse support versus non-support.
We had two-to-one support for the Lindenwood Consolidation.
And from looking at the qualitative notes behind that,
some of the themes that jumped out that I shared with you all before
was a desire for action, a need to move forward,
respond to the declining enrollment, respond to the condition needs.
Some of the specific quotes that I pulled out,
and I was preparing for this meeting and reading back through that community,
dialogue survey results and seeing the the narratives where a parent at at
Taylor saying you know quote my daughter goes to Taylor and I'd love to
have more students there from other areas you know talking speaking to the
this diversity is our strength from parents had said you know do it these
kids needs and staff need newer cleaner safer buildings action is needed to
make the mission statement true and then our children and until then our
children are not first there's a bunch of like little quotes that I kind
pulled out from the qualitative support, the non-support notes, but in terms of where
we are due to go back to this, nothing that you see here is new from the plan with the
exception of adding pre-K students to Monroe, which is the under 50% utilized, and we have
a desire to add pre-K.
So that's the new addition that the Steering Committee did not provide feedback on, but
more generally supported pre-K expansion.
Everything else is implementing the plan
and looking at the technical boundary piece to make it real.
Right, but if I may, this is a follow-up,
I understand that, but I went back and I requested
because some of the Zoom meetings were on the website,
but they were password protected
so you couldn't observe them.
So I went back and looked at some of the meetings
and I asked for attendance sheets.
So I looked at some of that.
And one of the things that I think we've talked about
as a board, especially as we looked at our advisory
committees was trying to be much more intentional
to make sure that if we have steering committees
or advisory groups that they are representative
of the community or representative of the school community.
So as I was watching some of the steering committee
meetings that you had, I just didn't see a lot
of parent participation or attendance or involvement in the steering committee, representative of
the demographics of our school division.
And so I think it's very important that we are intentional in trying to do that.
that otherwise, I think we just don't know
if we're getting that collective and inclusive voice
that I know we all share in trying to achieve.
And so I know we're gonna do public hearings
and all those things moving forward.
But even as, if I understood what you're saying
as you described, two to one decisions
or recommendations coming out of the steering committee,
You know, when I was looking at the attendant sheets, you know,
there's a large number of staff and folks that didn't have children in the school system
or made, you know, whether or not we even showed the diversity
between the number of homeowners that we have versus the number of renters that we have.
So that's why I was asking the question just from trying to make sure how that occurred
because I mentioned before that I think that when we first started there was much greater
intentionality around trying to reach as best we could that inclusive voice at the steering
committee level as I've shared with you that I think we have done over the last couple
of years.
May I wasn't, I didn't explain it well, the two to one was from the survey, it
wasn't from the steering committee, and that was well over 90% resident, the majority
being adults 50 to 65, 30 to 65, sorry, in that range.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Who are parents?
You all did a geocoding event?
We got the, no, this is from the survey results when they identified,
I am a parent, I am a guardian, I am a grandparent,
I am a non-resident, I'm a resident.
So that's just pulling from those steps.
Did it show good, like, I'm a grandparent and I live on 36th Street?
Well, I'm a grandparent and I affiliate with this elementary school,
this middle and this high. So we asked them for school affiliation and every school was
represented except for two in the division. One of them was a choice program. The name
of the school is escaping me right now. We had representation there. We didn't get
thousands and thousands of respondents, unfortunately, but you keep throwing it out there.
But from the responses that we did get 150 sample size from that group.
Did you geocode it?
We did not geocode it because we didn't ask for addresses.
We asked for their school affiliation.
People don't like to give.
Your response rate drops drastically when you ask that question.
So we just looked at what schools you affiliate and using that as a proxy
for where they are, where they have vested interests.
But you could map that against the attendant zones,
against the school communities that you collected.
We can. I mean, we have the data. Yeah.
Thanks.
Dr. Gabriel and then Mr. Clanton.
Thank you very much. I have a couple of thoughts and then some questions.
My personal thought is that the best thing that our board can do is to make sure that we are maximizing the academic potential of each of our kids no matter what school they are in.
Absolutely.
And that is going back to Dr. Birdsong and her staff doing the needs assessment.
We know that we have significant gaps.
We have a long way to go, even with the presentation that we just had,
and we're making some progress.
But again, to Mr. Jordan, we do, and to Ms. Kampson, the overarching goals.
Where do we see ourselves going year after year semester or semester after semester year after year?
Parents and I'm speaking for myself
But I do speak to a lot of parents and I have young children within the school division
We look at safety. We look at academic achievement. We look at the person who is going to be with our children
six to eight hours a day
do we have trust in that person and
And so, when we are thinking about these programs and these buildings, it is all about building
that winning team, that sense of security, that sense of achievement.
And we do have to demonstrate progress.
We have to demonstrate that we can achieve academically, that we can achieve safely,
that the teachers will feel empowered and valued to perform and to give it the extra
for what the kids need.
That's what makes the difference for the children.
And it really, again, I'm speaking for myself, to me, the diversity just adds to that when
they have all of that involved in their school.
And so we can spend a lot of time, we've had a lot of conversations about this, but again to me it is again putting that winning team together and really drilling down on the academics and making sure that those are solid, which goes to the professional development, which goes to the support systems, all of that.
So that's my thought.
I'm sure there's going to be a ask of the board for this presentation.
We have some scenarios before us.
We're going to have to make some decisions, which that's our job action based upon what the recommendations are,
based upon the feedback, based upon the data, based upon what we're presented with.
And so I'm sure that as a part of this discussion, we're going to get what those asks are going to be.
I have a couple of requests when it comes to the Lindenwood reconfiguration with Willard.
Willard Elementary School going back to the original FCI document was one of the older schools with the highest FCI.
And we've since put a new roof onto Wellard, which is great, but there are still a lot of other pieces in that building that need attention.
And I think it would be wonderful to bring in the students from Lindenwood there.
But there are some things to address at Wellard in order to, again, have it so that it's an upgrade for them.
I've spent many visits at Londonwood and I know about Willard and I'm thinking number
one, bathrooms and restrooms, number two, the play area.
Willard has an auditorium at a gym that is combined and if you're going to bring in
extra students and we really need a place for them to play and to have recreation
and to have that outlet.
Willard also serves as a polling location.
So every time there is an election,
the auditorium and the gym is cut off.
So enhancements to that school
definitely need to be playground,
the basketball courts,
so that the children have a place to play
and to exercise because,
I mean, I would love to have a whole gym built,
But I know that's pie in the sky, you know.
I would love that.
Do you remember when we were building the new space?
Exactly.
You know, we're working with what we have,
but the enhancements that we can make for a building
that I believe, if I'm understanding the conversation,
is going to serve us long term.
Yep.
We need-
It's got a large land capacity and it has the ability to, we can really put some investment
into it and enhance it for our children. And our staff, truly, because we want to retain
our staff there as well. The other ask that I will have as we are going into this conversation
is going back to preschool. I really do like the concept of the pre-K centers. I've been
to all of our pre-K centers. They're great. It is such a warm and nurturing environment.
But for parents, we still need to be able to offer pre-K options at their schools. And
so I would say, please do not go into a direction where we start to eliminate the pre-school
classes from, okay, I don't know, I know. I just don't want us to go and I want
us to preserve as we're looking at capacity. I want us to preserve the pre-K classes at
the schools because when you have a young child and they have siblings, you want one
trip to the school. And you also want to be close to your little one for a variety
of reasons. We know about little ones and accidents and things like that. So it's
a convenience factor for parents but we also know how well Norfolk does pre-K.
And in a time where parents are really in need of good, high-quality preschool and daycare,
we can offer that option.
And going back to Dr. Rouson's point of gateways and opportunities, pre-K is a great opportunity
to bring parents into our school division and show them how Norfolk really does a great
job with holistic care, holistic teaching.
So, those are my thoughts. I look forward to the requests and the asks of the board and the timeline for that as well.
Thank you.
Yep. You're teeing up my last slide.
Oh, great.
Sir Clinton also had a question, so I'm going to let him go.
Yeah, I just wanted to, um, about the engagement piece, um, because I mean that's important.
I mean, we ultimately have to make a decision to make it
ensuring that we have engagement with the community.
And just quickly on that one, I'm one of those paper people.
So I have the last presentation that you all
gave to us back in June.
And on page slide 23, you talked about the Survey Monkey,
which I take as a survey that you had,
and then two community meetings that you had.
Yeah, 13, 15, or something like that, yeah.
So we did some level engagement.
And I think that in this round,
this board has also seen where we've even had meetings
and tied specific communities at the request
and ask for community members to come out
and whether they do or don't.
You can't force people to do things,
but we do have information that's come in.
My question really goes to the next piece.
You've given us now some updates
from what we were presented in June.
There's some new things
and some new configurations that are there.
What would be the logical next thing
outside of what we're doing here as a board?
I don't know if that's Dr. Byrd song or are you here?
Is there, what is the level
of community engagement outside of this?
Is it public hearings?
Is it posting these things?
I don't want to jump ahead, but I'm just kind of,
I just wanted to answer that question
and give you an opportunity to provide some clarity around it.
Yeah, you got it.
And that's in that PowerPoint in that last slide.
That's the next slide.
For some reason, we're having this transition.
PowerPoint's possessed right now.
So we'll just do it from this screen.
Let's go, one quick slide before Matt.
And then, because I want to tee it up
and then get right into this,
what's the ask, what's the time line,
and then where do we go from there, okay?
So just real quick, I wanted to drill into
the Lindenwood repurposing for
the Madison High School program a little bit.
When we look at it, one of the things
I just wanna revisit just to make sure we're clear
on the condition and how it's calculated
is that HBA assessed the condition
in four priority levels.
Each level is associated with a period of five years.
Immediate, then six to 10, 11 to 15, so on and so forth,
then 15 years to 20 years out, over 15 to 20.
So P1 is right now the next five years, P2 up to 10, and then so on and so forth.
Then it has by system.
So one of the considerations on the trade-up and the facility concept
was we want to make sure this is a good fit for kids.
The vast majority of Lindenwood's condition needs, it has an FCI of about 66 once you
adjust for the annex and add in time, the continued sort of decline of a building,
is 66% are anticipated in years 15 to 20.
The vast majority of these condition needs are life cycle projection based, I can get
there. Coffee is wearing thin in years 15 to 20. Of the priority one, which is now about
two-thirds of that, has to do with the roof, which is being put back into the CIP for planning.
When, yeah, we're through the budgets and wind and all that stuff, but that's in there.
So like we're comfortable with the condition of this facility as a good home
We know we've got 15 years out some life cycle planning to do we got to dress the roof
Okay, the other thing is that it's just gorgeous outside you go outside on that campus and then the it's beautiful
Right and that's part of the thing what it was what I personally found attractive about this is very often our
alternative high school programs are
in leftover space, right?
And this is a beautiful site environment
in a good physical home that's under-sized
for an elementary school but right-sized for an alternative program.
It's the win-win-win. And so that was part of
where we went from Madison to Rosemont to Madison
to Lindenwood in addition to the other considerations mentioned before.
So I don't want to gloss over this too quickly.
And then the last slide, because we can't, for some reason, get it to do a full screen.
Here is when we look at sort of this draft implementation timeline for feedback.
And some of it is quick.
So if you want to pull that slide up, it helps you to see it better in front of you.
Now pre-K classrooms in Metlin-Rail, that's a fairly neat and tidy little process there.
We're just adding, we're adding pre-K classrooms so not moving mountains there but do a presentation
here today, communicate pre-K additions to the public coming up this summer in the school
year and just to do some minor facility preparations there around plumbing largely
in preparation.
Open the pre-K classrooms in this coming fall.
East in pre-K to Fairlawn, same thing here today.
having a public hearing and having a joint public hearing to talk about Eastern to Pre-K,
Madison Secondary Alternative Ed Program to Lyndon Wood and the Lyndon Wood to Taylor
and Lyndon Wood to Willard, Boundary Change Consolidation, having a space for that
at an upcoming board meeting here so that there is a public hearing on record for that.
And that, in addition to that, in speaking to Michelle, in advance of this, Michelle Washington, your CIO, looking ahead at sort of communications there, having mailers actually sent home to kids at Lindenwood so that it can be brought back and then mailed in as well.
So there's a physical way to provide feedback there to the board.
if you can't join the meeting physically or virtually or provide a digital comment because
you don't have internet access, there would be a way, a physical way to provide comment
there.
So it's coming up, looking at doing a public hearing for you in the March work session.
And that would add to the agenda on the 2nd of March and to move this along for fall
implementation of Eastern Pre-K Monroe and of moving ahead and looking at Lindenwood,
we've been looking at a vote on March the 16th.
That's a little over a month from now.
Having a public hearing in a month, having a vote in a month and a half.
There's your ask.
Great.
Thank you.
Yep.
And now, Ruffner, again, that's an extended time that kind of goes off the screen so
I'm mad if you can scroll down.
Ruffner is a longer process and Dr. Gibson, please feel free to jump in here.
And what we're looking at this is doing, really looking at the 2022-23 school year as that main planning event if you wanted to fill in, please.
Good morning.
As we used to say at all five VHSL meetings, what a wonderful day to be a part of North Dakota.
And as you listen and weigh in and discuss and make your decisions, Roughner's 3-8 is
one of the decisions that you'll also be making, and we're hoping that it will also be a part
of the public hearing in March so that you can, when you make that vote, we will have
that year to plan.
We do have a later date where there could be a public hearing in September and then Ruffner can begin to plan.
But we want to have that year to plan for Ruffner's transition so that a program can be selected.
We want to choose a program that offers diversity, that draws from across the city,
that successfully implements professional management, where a program can be sustained with fidelity
through professional development, not just of the staff, but of the leadership as well.
We're looking for a school program that is truly 21st century and we want something chosen
that will bring in business leaders, that will bring in the community, that will bring
in the social emotional learning support that many of our children need no matter
where they live.
And we want to make sure that as we plan we have our parents, our staff, our school
leaders, academic affairs, school leadership, the school principal, the instructional leadership
team in the building, community leaders, businesses, and people from faith-based organizations,
PTA, everyone who has a stake in Norfolk Public Schools included in that planning process.
We also want to ensure that we have community input time beyond the public hearing so
that as we plan and make decisions and we come back to you in early August, September, or
in October, November, based on when the public hearing will be for the rough of 3-8, we can
present to you a school program that is vetted, that is sound, and that can be supported
financially as well as professionally in Norfolk Public Schools so that it becomes
a legacy that it draws from across the city. And the choice seats, the beautiful thing
about the choice seats in Ruffner will be pretty similar to the choice seats at Ghent. Everybody
attending the school, the children's zone for the school, as well as the children
who come in through choice, will be sitting side by side learning the same curriculum.
So we won't have a program in the building for choice students and another program
for zone students. It will be one program and those students choosing to come in will
become a part of a very dynamic educational program. I can go on and on and on with how
great the idea is, but I think the greatest idea here today is the change process and
the decisions you all are going to need to make. So I'm going to stop at this point.
Thank you, Dr. Gibson.
Well, that's...
Did you have a question, Mr. Seed?
That's what we have.
go ahead.
So tying back to some of the the discussion we also had. So Ruffner is also
one of those schools that we are possibly renaming. Correct? That was on the on the
list. So when we think about how we have successfully developed other programs, other schools rebranded
other schools in the district, I assume we will be incorporating that into this process.
Correct?
That's correct.
We want to have some similar to the way the ATL was planned.
Right.
We want to make that decision early enough so that we
process and have a protocol so that
the decisions that are made, but there are sound decisions that are going to result
in a strong program.
But Mr. Plattons.
So I just, based on what was being presented back to Roger as well, particularly Tyler
Department.
Park. Um, I know that I've seen it somewhere in here. I know we talk about the same college
partner and working with development that's going on there, but it's not mistaken. Um,
Tablet of Park is identified as a site that is a part of that redevelopment as a whole.
So at some point in time that school's going to come off line or need to come off line,
I guess, at some point. That is true. There was a request. Let me make that very clear.
a request from the city manager for us to vacate the building on the fall of 2023.
So based on that request, I guess for that, the whole thing, regardless of
whatever the political spectrum you are supporting, the same false pardon or not,
we've gotten an official request from the city manager about that particular
site. The plan that you're presenting here today gives us an option for those
particular students that are in that site to be able to create something dynamic new and
be able to appropriately move them into a facility, I'm not mistaken. I guess it wasn't
90s when Rockland was built.
I think it was right around the same time I'll ignore you 1994 and the Norview middle school and so forth. So when I looked at that particular one, we have a plan. I mean, well, you all presented as a plan here for that particular site.
Looking at, you know, that's pretty old school there, but being able to come up with.
Oh, it's not on, oh, sorry, no, it was on the corner.
Sorry.
Now repeat everything you already said.
I will not do that again.
We got it.
So I just, my thing is, is that looking at this here
and looking at the timeline, that really that's
where I kind of go back here.
We have a request for an earlier timeline
to give you appropriate amount of time, at least for a year,
to plan, to have some additional conversation.
Because if I'm not mistaken, you also
did that with Lake Taylor School. You allowed the community to come up, to talk about it,
to be involved. And I think that that's an important piece and we kind of put that theme
out here that we want community engagement in it. And so essentially we got a decision
either we add it into if we go with the March timeframe, right? Is that what I'm
saying? That gives you an additional year to kind of do that development of what it
looks like. It's not necessarily saying that we are committed to with the last
because I'm quite sure you're going to have to come back and tell us what the plan is but it's
just saying that we're giving as a board green light to go ahead and continue to explore this
and come back right because we need time to plan so you can have the appropriate time for plan
okay I just wanted to be clear on what the request when we say March yet because it's
right here we're here February we're saying March what is that year-long planning really
look like and that includes more time to develop with the academic program will be and to do
the engagement piece.
All right, thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Bacina and then Mr. Jordan.
Yeah, so I appreciate it and I have that with the big asterisks in my notes here
to come back to. So I'm thankful that you raised that question because I want to
piggyback on that. So I have a concern that I want to be sure that we are
doing and planning appropriately and not just because the city says you know and
so I just want to be clear that you know it's a request but that if we need more
time especially to do due diligence to the families in the St. Paul's
quadrant families that may want to come come back to the St. Paul's quadrant
you know that we are we are working on our timeline right and not the city's
timeline of when they say you know that we've got to move or we've got to do x y
and z that we are putting the children first and we're very sensitive to that
and this is the scene you need to know that we're very very sensitive to that
and what the families are going through and as we've been watching the
I think the projection for next year is for typewater part to have around 153 kids, right, Rick?
I think it's around 153.
Maybe three classes at third, three at fifth, and two at sixth.
And I'm sorry, fourth, I believe.
And so the enrollment is continuing to decline.
Certainly, you know, of all of the flooding issues we have,
We would not recommend any facility to you that was not a trade-up and Ruffner is
from Tidewater Park. There are a variety of issues with that facility and so we
have been very thoughtful about that and very thoughtful about making sure we're
taking care of our families at the end of the day first and foremost. So yes,
so we don't feel like we're being put out and I've made that very clear to
my team. When the request was made, certainly we started thinking about, you know, what can
we do to ensure better outcomes, academic outcomes for our kids and what that could look like.
So I don't feel any pressure from the city to vacate. I just know at some point, you
know, we can't have three kids in that building. I mean, we're going to have to do something.
And so we're trying to be as proactive as possible.
Go ahead, Mr. Jordan.
I'm glad the request from the city came up because that was another question I had.
When did the city managers send that?
That's been, what, over a year ago, maybe?
Oh, yeah, because I've been...
It's been a minute. It's been a while.
Yeah, because I've been...
It's been over a year ago.
Yeah, I had asked about it before, and so can the board get a copy of the request, please?
There was a letter addressed to me, but I'm happy to share it if I need to.
Yeah, he may not real. I mean, the board makes the decision in terms of closing the schools and
he's like a copy of the letter of the requesting. Yes. Yeah. Yeah.
I'll go through my files and dig it out and send it to you. And part of that context is so
You know, the city entered into a settlement agreement with residents related to the St.
Paul's development area.
The Choice Neighborhood Implementation Grant identifies the school system as the lead
around its use of ARP funds and there's this discussion going on about moving
the historic Huntin' YMCA to the Tyler to Park Elementary School site, which I
think I brought up previously. So there's a lot of moving pieces and we
just haven't gotten an update from the city to the board in terms of where we
This was, you know, one of the reasons why I thought it was important for us to keep the
whole St. Paul's area as part of our update schedule as a board.
So I think the March 16 public hearing is on the Refterner piece is way too soon.
The Easton piece, I think we have had community conversations and talked about that for
for a while, so the Eastern Fair lawn piece,
I don't think would be as much of a surprise
to the community than the Reffner piece.
We also have budget development going on at the same time,
budget public hearings that we have in that same timeframe.
And this is just one work session that we've had.
And so I think trying to push the Reffner piece
on to the public hearing on the 16th is just too early.
Also, the city, you know, as part of the Refner piece,
there have been a variety of conversations
that have been city-led.
At one time, they were having conversations
with purpose-built communities about coming in
and doing something with the school.
It sounded very similar to what Dr. Gibson was describing.
Then there's been conversations about changing Ruffner to a charter school.
There's been conversations there.
There's conversations with the new E3 school being involved in the area.
So it's a lot of conversations that have been having amongst around community stakeholders.
but just not sure where that is and I think it's important that that be be
clear and we understand that process and are truly at the table as active
stakeholders. On the Lindenwood piece I still have some concerns about the
the Lindenwood piece beyond attendance zones, but just, you know,
some years ago we moved
the CSEP program into the old Richard Bowling Elementary School, and promises were made
that that would be addressed in a short timeframe, whatever it is, four years later,
five years later, and no action has occurred there.
we talk about action and the importance of that action or inaction is that having
at that time having the Richard Bowling school continue to be utilized it had
impact on the continuation of the Broad Creek redevelopment and the drives
towards being a more mixed income community with increased home ownership.
So in Lindenwood, there were also discussions at one point.
I don't know where they are today, but this is why I think we need to have them.
There have been conversations of that beautiful waterfront that you're talking about,
being an opportunity for Lindenwood to also benefit from new residential development as well.
So, you know, so in one sense we talk about the impact of redevelopment and how it impacts schools.
and so systemically what tends to occur is we will be very intentional about these
efforts going back to Ms. Camps's point west of Toddwood Drive. So you know in
the north side of the city the residents at the north side and the
leadership there had to fight tremendously
so that they could see opportunities like East Beach
and some of the development that's happened there.
I mean, it was a big issue.
I'm glad they won.
And there's been a lot of success
that we've seen happen in the North end of the city.
The West end of the city, as Ms. Kampson mentioned earlier,
always has been protected and still is protected today.
The east side, south side typically just gets ignored and run over, and then the east side, similarly.
So I think that we deserve a much more focused and intentional effort when it comes to the Refna piece, the St. Paul's piece.
there are other pieces in the choice neighborhood plan that also talked about Booker T. So, you
know, if we're going to do this, then I think that the east side of the city, I represent
Ward 7, this is Ward 7, is deserving of intentional focused strategic housing and neighborhood
and schools development, just as we do in other parts of the city.
And I think just putting something on the agenda for March 16th,
and, you know, I appreciated the presentation that Dr. Gibson gave,
but I think we deserve, this is not towards her,
I'm just saying generally, that we deserve much more engagement
engagement and intentionality around that. And March 16th in the middle of winter
in the middle of the ongoing pandemic for community that has been
disproportionately impacted. Um, I think we need more time than this quick
turnaround that we're just seeing for the first time. So that's that's my
input on that.
Go ahead, Miss Kampson.
The clock is tick tick ticking on the lives of the children that we have
under our care. Now, today. Not five years from now when this neighborhood might be built.
Or ten years from now when this might happen. We need to do something.
I'm going to have to back up. I can't.
Take your mic with you.
It's time for us to start focusing on the children we have now, not what might happen
years and years and years down the road.
It's time for our children not to be in dangerous, un-maintained school buildings.
It's time for our children not to be in a tiny little school that's withering away when they could be in a big, vibrant school with other children doing things.
It is time for us to act.
There becomes a time when leadership fails because of lack of action.
We were elected to be leaders, not people standing around and talking all the time.
It is time. This isn't something that the gentleman just brought in today that we've never seen before.
We've been looking at it for the last few years.
And here we still sit, and here our children still sit with no forward movement.
So I strongly urge the board to move ahead as has been requested by our superintendent and her staff,
certainly by parents who are tired of seeing their kids left behind.
They're tired of walking into old crumbling schools.
This is a start.
It takes eight decades to get through all the schools at the rate we have to go, but we don't have the funds.
But for what we have the funds for and the opportunity we have now to make the lives and the safety and the education of the children that this is focusing on,
and we're all focused, we know what we're focusing on here.
We've talked about it for the last few years, so I strongly urge everyone to less take
Make a decision. Failure to make decisions is the death of leadership. Thanks.
So is this the, thank you both for your comments. So at this point we're landing on this slide
here. Is this where we, these are the recommendations here? So as we go through each of them and talk about each recommendation
on where we stand on this, I just want to take a litmus test to where are you, like where are we now?
Is that what you need?
Well, again, we would like to have a public hearing, I believe it's March the 2nd,
have a public hearing around moving the preschool program at Easton the Fairline,
Moving the Secondary Alternative Education Program from Madison to
Lendison, Lendemwood, rezoning Lendemwood's children to W.H. Taylor and
Willard, repurposing Ruffner to a 3-8 school with choice seats. And I don't
know if you need to vote on the additional pre-K classes that I don't
think you need to do that at Monroe. But that is what we're asking to do to
hold the public here on the second with a vote from the board on March the 16th.
And so, you know, Mr. Jordan, to his point about being in the middle of a
pandemic, I appreciate that. But because of that and everything else that we
have on our plates in terms of doing first and foremost what we need to
do for our children, which is improving their academic outcomes and our focus
on that these other things would have to get done to and we would have to have
time to do them. These things cannot happen overnight and if the board chooses
not to move forward with this then we're going to have to not move for it next
year. We're going to have to come up with another plan because again this is
a lot during the middle of a pandemic to get all of these things
accomplished on top of the our main thing which is improving our academic
outcomes for our students. We believe that we can do it otherwise I would not
make the recommendation but we have to have the time to get all of this
accomplished and we and if the board would like us to move forward we need to
know in March because if we don't know at that point it's going to be nearly
impossible to to move some of these things forward. Okay thank you Dr.
I will point out under this is just yeah you have the dates right under
under Lindenwood, Step 2 and 3, but the box is colored in February and March.
I noticed that as I was speaking. That is my error, my apologies for that.
It's the idea to have it all in the same, the 16th, it's not voting on the 16th,
which is also the 7th. I can't bend the space-time continuum.
And to speak on the rougher part as well, just to clarify the point as Dr. Gibson was bringing up,
looking for direction from the board to proceed with the planning to come to a full public hearing in the fall
and back to the board with the ability to have some more detail.
But to do engagement along the way per what she said there to get ready.
So that was part of the timing there.
We need direction on that one to get prepared for that deeper dive.
And while doing that engagement to a lot of the discussion here, especially it's brought
up by Mr. Jordan, is to be as intentional as possible, as I guess intentional as practical
with making sure that we get the parents of those children who, you know, were trying
to help involved in the process and obviously getting a larger sample size of the population.
Ms. Dr. Gabriel, I know you had your hand up. Go ahead.
So, I am in complete support of the four schools that we are still being asked to rebuild completely.
That would be Moray High School, Granby Elementary, Jay Cox, and Norvey Elementary.
And I am in support of having the set recommendations as presented by Dr. Birdsong and Cooperative Strategies
for the agenda in March and again just to say if we could just add on any
additional support to Willard, I would appreciate that.
Noted.
Okay, thank you Dr. Gabriel. Let's just go around the table.
Dr. Rouson,
where are you with this plan? Do you support it?
also the okay any comments I understand right now the big picture and I think
that's what that's how I'm seeing it because I think specific because I had
mentioned specific ideas gory details I think that can be figured out later
but the last conversation right but yeah but but I see the big yes I'm in
figure okay and then the rebuilds of Maury High School Grammy elementary
Northview, elementary and Jacob elementary. I'm in favor. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead Mr. Cleen.
Pop again.
Yes, I'm in favor. The same support and that I gave back when we took a vote on
back in July. And I agree with Ms. Kampson. You know, I've said it before we've got to
be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We've got to take care of the things
that are immediate as well as projecting for what we need to do long range and I
agree with Dr. Bouson in respect that this is high level but as a board and
our superintendent is asking us here her staff if you give us the amount of time
that we need we can come back with the plan and we continue that
conversation and what I really like about this here is that you're giving
us a timeline with measurable dates which I think it's been brought up
several times amongst many members of this board when we're going to talk
about specific things, more we're going to take action and show our appreciate that because
that allows us to plan to have these intentional conversations from a board level, but as well
as to ensure that we have the necessary public engagement and that our staff knows what we
need in order to take next steps.
And so I'm in support of this and moving it forward to our official agenda.
Thank you, Mr. Fenton.
Anything else to add, Ms. Kampson?
We've heard from you.
I've always wanted to add that I was a bit of a mad today.
I'm just strongly supportive for our children
that are in our schools today, thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Visine.
Thank you, Dr. Martin.
First, before I share,
I do appreciate all of the data points
that were provided today.
I appreciate the conversation that we've all had
and around our overarching goal of trying
to create more socioeconomically diverse schools, more so than I think we have in a long time.
So I do appreciate that.
I do remain concerned for the reasons that I've already discussed, you know, that having
a better overview of some of our other programs as we talk about these programs, I do think
it's very important even as we talk about equity, I think we need to talk about equity
in our discussion around around this and I know some of these things have been proposed to us
for a long time but I don't believe that the community has been aware of all of these potential
decisions and as we've stated already we've been in the midst of a pandemic we've been in the
midst of a lot of things where families have had higher priority concerns
then some of the discussions we've been having,
and I think that it's unrealistic
to have a public hearing one week
and then a vote in two weeks after that,
especially when we are in the midst of
we're gonna be having a budget hearing,
we're gonna be having budget discussions,
we're going, there's just a lot going on
and it feels like, and I'm just saying
this is not a criticism but it feels like these are just check boxes at this point.
We've heard from community members what has happened when they have felt like we have
rushed through with our decision making process.
I think we've heard a lot from community members at South Side STEM Academy what has happened,
how they have felt about the programming at the school and their perceived,
you
So I think we need to be even more diligent in the opportunities that we provide the community to share their thoughts and feedback.
And I frankly don't think that what we have put forward is realistic and and allows for genuine community engagement.
So, I would like to see more time being had, more community conversations, like we have
had with other programs and other schools that we've had developed over the last few years.
I think it's fair to ask for, you know, other than a public hearing, other ways that we
can reach out to the community and get them involved.
I think that's fair.
And we have a plan for that, Dr. Gibson just didn't get those where the details
that weren't shared, but we've talked about building level engagement and how to more effectively
engage our parents at the school sites. So we've discussed it at that admin level. So
we know just having a public hearing. So we just want to check the box. We are actually trying
to engage our parents. Yeah. Um, but I'm just saying like we can, if we could have that shared
with the board, that'd be great. Go ahead, Ms. Visine and then Mr. Jordan. Well, and I would
also like to have board opportunity to receive that feedback and have discussion about what
it is we're hearing. So that piece may be lost in the current timeline. So that concerns
me. I think there's definitely a lot of excitement, a lot of great potential that I see with
this plan so I'm not saying that that isn't there, but I want us to be really intentional
about the engagement around it and really planning for it appropriately. I'll leave that. Thank
you.
And I can assume that teachers are involved in the planning also, of course.
That is a part of the process.
That teachers are involved in some of this looking at, okay.
Absolutely.
I'm on with the building administration. Okay. Yes.
Mr. Jordan, I just first I have a question.
What does the law say about the notices that the school board has to place for the public
when it comes to public hearings dealing with 10 days in advance? I'm sorry. 10 days
in advance it must be published. For which one? Public hearings. Even dealing with attendance
zones and school closures? To my knowledge. I mean I'm not Jack Cloud but. I mean I assume
you all already talked about it. We did. We did discuss that. We looked at precedent
in terms of media release and we looked at the 10 days in advance. That was part of
the part of the calculation is not just the 10 days but looking at can we get advance
chance enough ahead of that meeting to make more press release to add that layer.
Thank you.
Again, I think that the eastern and far along pieces is appropriate for March 2nd.
Dr. Martin, you know, I appreciated the comments that my colleague, Ms. Kampson, made.
And part of the reason when we're looking at this data that enrollment is declining
at Tylerwood Park Elementary School is a result of redevelopment.
So, you know, very early in the meeting, I asked the question, can you tell us where
the children who live in, who used to live in Tidewater Park where they are now and I
didn't get that information.
We can tell you we're happy to do that.
I'm just, I'm just taking my time.
So the point that I was trying to make is that those students that are in Tidewater
part right now are likely those students who are still a part of the
redevelopment plan and their units haven't been phased out, but other
children have been relocated to other schools and at the St. Paul's Advisory
Committee meeting they often give reports and have a dashboard of where
those where those students are.
Earlier I passed out when Dr. Burson was asking
about the middle schools and how Lyndon would get there. I remember the board at
the time had at least two public hearings related to those changes. One was
at Reffner and one was at Northside and I can remember the one at Northside
because late Senator Yvonne Miller was there and spoke to the board and was very well attended.
Maybe about 3,000 folks showed up at that time and advocated for some things.
So these conversations, when it comes to African American children in particular,
Um, this is, this is how it goes. Um, and I think that in light of the anti-racism policy
that the board or proclamation that the board adopted in 2020, I think we should adhere to,
to that, to that goal. And so, um, the, I'm all for supporting planning, but I think
for the board to have a public hearing on the Reffner and Lindenwood piece.
That soon
is just too soon that we need to do more in terms of parental engagement. If we all were
running for election in November, we would do robo calls and direct mails and knocking
on doors. It's all kinds of things we would do if we wanted voters to vote us in. And I
think that we have an opportunity to be just as intentional to reach out to parents and
families, especially in this case, because what we're talking about is Wyndon Wood Elementary
Central School, which is overwhelmingly African-American.
We're talking about Madison, where
an awful data shows that African-American children
are disproportionately represented
in our alternative program.
So we're talking about overwhelmingly
African-American students.
We're talking about Ruffner and Todd
with a park, which right now are schools and neighborhoods
us that are overwhelmingly African American students and we are repeating the same things
or we are proposing to repeat in 2022 the same things that that we did that got us into the
situation to begin so but obviously the will of the board will be the will of the board.
I just think that as a board that champions the rights of all children and believes in the importance of learning from history,
that we should model that in our decision making now and not just follow the typical pattern of neglect,
deteriorate, then say we care and then make actions without considering what
the data tells us and what the research tells us. I just think it's too soon to
put all of that on that March 2nd time frame after just hearing it for the
first time today. So thank you. All right thank you. So I'm sorry that
there's disagreement but we are going to move forward and with the hearing and have the
vote,
plan to have the vote according to this timeline on March 6th, March 16th, right.
So we need to put this item on the, yeah,
the 4th, let's say, right, we'll take it
I'll take care of that.
I just made one comment back saying
February 16th.
Yes, February 16th.
OK.
Is there anything else that you need to know?
Oh, I'm just kidding.
All right.
Is there anything else that's here today?
Yeah, let me check.
That's it.
11.36.
OK.
What's that?
That it gives everybody their time.
I know.
I'm sure people will appreciate the weather.
Okay.
Well, thank you for your presentation and leading us through this.
And of course, I think the big takeaways, I mean, you know, like just to repeat myself
is you know really trying to continue to include a larger sample size of our city
in these discussions and of
course working with the administration and
getting into marketing advertising the opportunities and of course email
always works we have our public comment at our business meetings all of the
traditional ways of communicating as well.
So,
all right, everyone's waiting for me to join,
so I adjourn this meeting.