Boundary Option

No, this option is not from any committee. This option comes from looking at maps, seeing where students are living now and where families are moving to within the city. This idea comes from listening to the concerns of community members from all over the district. In addition, this idea is currently being used by school districts already operating and not just saying they want to. This idea has the flexibility to work under any grade configuration, with any number of schools, with charter school requirements to be self-governing, with any boundary or transportation policy, with special education needs and partnerships with parochial schools for busing, and has the flexibility to take us through the next ten years and into the following ten. This also eliminates any need for a grandfather clause.

Of course, there will be those that claim this will not work. I say, "Bring it on." Send me your "Devil's Advocate" questions. Bring me your criticisms. Let me know why you would or would not support this. I welcome it all because it helps to flesh out an idea and cover every angle and every eventuality as best as possible. I accept the possibility that this might not fly with the community or the current BOE, but I believe that it is a far cry better than an ambiguous and confusing grandfathering policy attached to an equally confusing boundary plan that does little for future overcrowding and underutilization.

So here it is: The first step is to take whatever map is being used and wipe it clean of all current boundaries. Draw in the school district outline and place the buildings that are to be kept.

Next, using district software, draw a boundary around each building that encompasses the capacity guidelines for each building. Example, if Merrill has the capacity for 825 students and we decide to limit the enrollment to 90% for flexibility, we draw the boundary based on 742 or 743, depending on how we round off. The goal with the boundaries is to try to come as close to the other boundaries as possible without a school ending up outside its own boundary area and be aware of major streets that would make sense as boundaries (ie Merritt, 9th Ave, Witzel, Knapp, etc).

Then we write a registration policy that outlines how students are registered for school, how attendance areas and transportation are handled, and priorities for registration applications. That is correct, "applications." Each year families would receive their registration packets as usual. On the main form where it asks what school the child attended and will attend, the new form would ask which school is preferred with space for up to three choices. Essentially, parents would get to apply to any school in the district regardless of address. The form would then be submitted to the building principal for approval or forwarded to the next school on the list if the capacity has been reached.

Priority is based on a three-tiered system. First priority for applications is given to the families that live within the defined boundary area for the school. Those students would be eligible for transportation through the district. Second priority is given to students from OASD but who do not live inside the boundary area of the school applied to. Transportation may or might not be provided by the district depending on how far outside the attendance area in question and if it is on an established route. Finally priority is given to students from outside of OASD on open enrollment. Transportation is not provided by the district, as is current policy. Since open enrollment applications currently cannot be accepted if the specified building is full, this system would not change anything. New students to the district would fall under the same prioritization. If someone comes into the district mid-year, prioritization follows the same procedure. If we base capacity on 95%, 90%, or even 80%, there would be room for additional students on a case-by-case basis. Some exceptions would be for special education students that need specific programs that are only offered in a few schools, charter schools, and extenuating circumstances.

If a family does not get their first choice, they can request to be placed on a waiting list for that school. Once in a building, the family is assured a spot until their child leaves the school. If a sibling is in the same grade group (4-8), they would attend the same school through 8th grade. If a child is in 8th grade and a sibling is in 3rd, they both have to apply to the schools of their choice and it would be possible for the 3rd grader to attend the same or a different school than their older sibling had attended depending on capacity issues and family choice. Because of the different academies in the two high schools, siblings from the same family may choose to send their child to different high schools. Additionally, west and south side families may voluntarily send their children to North because of specific programs available, as well as, families who fall under the prioritization policy.

Tracking this process would not be much more work than already takes place within buildings and within the district with registration, inter-district open enrollment, and intra-district open enrollment. An addition to currently existing tracking software could be created with a partnership with UWO. For example one or more college students studying software development could take an independent study for at least three credits to develop what we need. We get the program at virtually no additional cost that is compatible with what we already have and local college students get real world experience and college credit. Win-win.

When discussing this idea, someone asked what happens if one school only gets 40 applicants. His example was Green Meadow. Let's say Green Meadow, Shapiro, and Oakwood are the nearest K-3 schools (should we adopt that configuration) and only 40 students apply. For starters, those 40 get in with no problem. Knowing the number of students in the area, it is unlikely the remaining population in that area would all fit into Shapiro and Oakwood. Once capacity is reached in Oakwood and Shapiro, the remaining applications would be sent to Green Meadow if it is the nearest school to their home. The parents can request to be put on a waiting list for their first choice, but their child would go to the school where there is space available.

This will also be good for academics in several ways. In school districts around the country that are already doing something like this, their schools are making ongoing improvement and outscoring their set boundary counterparts. Parents look at test scores and where students end up going to college when picking the building, or even district, to send their child to. If a building in our district has few applications, that would trigger the district administration to step in and figure out why. Schools in our district would essentially be competing against themselves, as they do now, striving to do better and better each year for their students. In addition, schools would be competing against each other. This would essentially raise the bar for the entire district instead of lowering it. This "competition" would also encourage staff and administration from one school to look at the others and see if any of the successful programs would work in their buildings. For instance, could Smith's anti-bullying program, which works very well in their building, be implemented at Traeger to enhance their efforts? Collaboration would become more wide spread and productive as more defined goals present themselves and the resources necessary to reach those goals. We have a lot of talented people and valuable resources we have yet to tap. Our potential is endless.

Other benefits are that if students are split up, it is by parental choice or due to overcrowding. Regardless, parents have the information they need to make their decisions and all the information to understand why their child and the child's best friend might not be able to attend the same school in a given year. Families selling their home would not experience as large a drop in market value, if there is a drop at all. Conversely, this may raise home values in some areas that aren't on top of a school, but are nearby. Small groups of students are not cherry-picked from their neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are not constantly targeted for boundary adjustments. Students would be able to benefit from the variety of charter schools in our district without having to live near them as the only way they can attend. So, if a family wanted to attend the Brain-based Charter at Shapiro, they could apply there even if they live in Jefferson's attendance area. Conversely, if a family does not agree with the philosophy of a charter school, their child would not be forced to attend simply because they live in that boundary area. Families near Shapiro that are opposed to the Brain-based learning theory, could apply elsewhere instead of being forced to attend Shapiro. Overall, there could be more parental involvement because of the ability to choose where children will attend school. That puts more personal stake into out children's education. Everyone wants to be there and everyone want the students and school to be successful because few actually have to be there.

The greatest advantage for our students and our community comes from the satisfaction of being informed and part of the decision-making process, not having devisive boundaries, and simply having a choice.

Why, as a parent, would I agree to this? If I could handle the travel and separating my children, I would send one child to Webster because of the student newspaper and the great things I have heard about their literacy program. My oldest would have benefitted from that program. I would keep my Autistic daughter at Traeger because of our experience with the teachers Nikki has worked with the last couple of years. My younger boys, I believe would benefit from Oakwood or Green Meadow. The types of communities those two schools promote is absolutely wonderful, particularly the closeness of Oakwood and the rural values of Green Meadow. I would also like to see Smith's bullying program at most, if not all, of our other schools. I would like to see Webster's student newspaper concept at all of our schools. I would like to see the devisiveness perpetuated in our community by a stubborn few finally die. Having choices really would accomplish much for our school district and our community. We would be innovative in a way that raises the bar and costs little to nothing. We would be a draw for families who are looking for choices. We would be a draw for development looking for innovative and responsible schools with an eye for growth not just on the eventuality of it.