Boundary Review Committee 2021

Zoom Meeting: https://issaquah-wednet-edu.zoom.us/s/94004204948

Agenda:

• Welcome and Introductions
  • Superintendent Thiele, Dr. Josh Almy, Jake Kuper
• Agenda Review and Meeting Dates/Times
  • Josh Almy, Jake Kuper
• Group operating norms and charter review
  • Josh Almy, Jake Kuper, and Technical Team
• Community/Stakeholder feedback and committee information timeline
  • Josh Almy, Jake Kuper
• How to do a boundary review in a Virtual Setting
  • Josh Almy, Jake Kuper
• Break-out rooms
• Main rooms
• Chat, etc?
• Discuss and take action on voting thresholds and quorum requirements
  • Josh Almy, Jake Kuper
• Review district enrollment and facility data
  • Josh Almy, Jake Kuper
• Spring Board proposal for boundaries
  • Josh Almy, Jake Kuper
• Overview of next meeting and closure
  • Josh Almy, Jake Kuper

Official Action

The committee decided, via simple majority, that quorum is considered to be 75% of all committee voting members (or 30 members). The committee also decided, via simple majority, that threshold in order to pass a vote will be 75%. No proxy votes will be permitted.

Discussion

For the inaugural meeting, committee members introduced themselves and reviewed the charter, operating norms, and discussed how to hold a boundary review within a virtual setting. Quorum and passage thresholds were established. The Technical team presented an overview of District enrollment and facility data, along with the springboard proposal for new elementary and middle school boundaries.

Up Next

Committee members will return for the next meeting on December 17. During this time in between meetings, they will be asked to further review the springboard proposal and supporting documentation, and any community input received. The next meeting will spend additional time walking through the springboard proposal with the Technical team, as well as starting to focus on elementary boundaries. 

Welcome and Introduction

• Josh Almy, Deputy Superintendent, kicked off Boundary Review Committee (BRC) meeting and facilitated introductions
  • Ron Thiele, Superintendent, thanked BRC members for their time and support with development of boundary recommendations
  • Jake Kuper, Chief of Finance and Operations (CFO) introduced as co-facilitator with Dr. Almy
• BRC members consist of:
  • One parent representative from each elementary school (ES) – 15 in all
  • One parent representative from each middle school (MS) – 5 in all
  • One principal representative from each ES and MS in District – 20 in all
    • All members were present, and each member is a voting member – 40 votes
  • Technical Committee members are non-voting members of committee and consist of District Administration
    • Deputy Superintendent
    • Chief of Finance and Operations (CFO)
    • Executive Director of Finance and Support Services
    • Executive Director of Elementary Schools
    • Executive Director of Middle Schools
    • Executive Director of High Schools
    • Executive Director of Special Services
    • Executive Director of Communications and Digital Strategy
    • Director of Capital Projects
    • Director of Transportation
    • Transportation Supervisor
    • Administrative and Technical Meeting Support Staff

Agenda Review and Meeting Dates/Times

• Walkthrough of agenda with BRC members
• Four meetings scheduled in total, with a fifth meeting if necessary – through February 2021

Group Operating Norms

• Walkthrough of group operating norms
• Will be loosely based on “Robert’s Rules of Order”
• Discussed need around establishing quorum and threshold for passage of votes
• Once quorum established
  • Motion will be made
  • Motion will need to be seconded
  • Call for vote
• Technical team does not vote

Community / Stakeholder Feedback and Committee Information Timeline

• Committee materials will be posted to the ISD website prior to meetings – Boundary Review 2021
• Community input can be sent to the BRC via email: BRC@issaquah.wednet.edu
  • Emails received will be sent via PDF email to BRC members Tuesday prior to each meeting
• Any committee member can reach out to Dr. Almy, Mr. Kuper, or any member of Technical Team with questions throughout process

How to Conduct a Boundary Review in Virtual Setting

• Acknowledgement of virtual environment being different than physical environment in boardroom
• All meetings will be held virtually over Zoom and utilize breakout rooms and voting polls as needed
• Meetings will also be livestreamed to public via ISD YouTube channel
  • Note: during breakout room sessions, livestream will be turned off

Charter Review

• April 2016 – voters approved $533M bond issue that allowed for construction of four new schools along with other improvements District wide
• This committee is focused on boundaries for two new elementary schools and one new middle school
  • ES 16 & MS 6 – opening Fall 2021
  • ES 17 – opening TBD
• Starting point: springboard proposal
  • BRC action – voting to change springboard and bringing forward recommendation to Superintendent
• Parameters
  • BRC members, while representing their school, must also act in the best interest of the District
  • Must also take into consideration impact of bussing / timing of transportation
• Limitations
  • Does not include high school boundary discussion
  • Does not include placement of programs (ie MERLIN, LRCII, etc)
  • Does not include grandfathering of students
• Must also take into consideration emotional and cultural effects of boundary changes
  • How can we best accept families into a new school or a new boundary change?

Voting Thresholds and Quorum Requirements

• BRC members were placed in five separate breakout rooms to come to consensus on two questions to share with the larger group
  • What constitutes a quorum? (out of 40 voting total members)
    • What is the minimum number of members that must be present at meeting?
  • What constitutes a passing percentage (%) for a vote?
• Each group reported out on discussions
  • Quorum range: 70% - 75%
  • Passing range: 75% - 80%
• Motion was made by Dana Rundle, and seconded by Tod Wood to establish quorum at 75% (30 people) and to establish passage of vote at 75% (30 people).
• Results of poll: 97% YES (39 people), 3% NO (1 person) – MOTION CARRIED

District Enrollment and Facility Data

• Kuper walked BRC members through historical and future enrollment numbers, along with information regarding District facilities
  • All information is found on the ISD Boundary Review website and will also be sent to committee members via email
  • Historical Counts by Buildings – from 2005 to present
    • Addition of ~ 5000 students from 2005 to 2020
    • Effects of COVID are shown in current year’s enrollment (down 5% / 1000 students)
  • Enrollment Trends – ISD is one of fastest growing Districts in State
  • Elementary Enrollment – broken out by each building
    • Large uptick/downtick takes into consideration new building or boundary change
  • Elementary School Averages by Area
    • Central Area – Issaquah High feeder pattern
    • North Area – Skyline High School feeder pattern
    • South Area – Liberty feeder pattern
  • Elementary Portable Classrooms by Area – not considered permanent capacity
    • ISD is in Top 5 Statewide for onsite portables
  • Portable Building Inventory – 221 classroom equivalents
  • Middle School Enrollment Trends
    • Average for MS ~ 1000 students; note Maywood MS outlier
  • Enrollment Budget Projections vs Actual
    • 2020-21: Kindergarten largest number of students planned but not attending
  • Enrollment Projections through 2025-26
    • Standard Model – shows mediocre growth
    • Continued COVID Decline Model – shows large decline
    • COVID Bound Back Model – shows large growth
  • Standard of Service - how ISD accounts for class size
    • K-5 class size: average 20 students
    • 6-8 class size: average 26 students
  • Student Factors – Single Family and Multi Family Housing
    • Data shows how many students are potentially generated from new construction
  • Urban Growth Boundary Map – can only build new schools within this area
  • Capacity Charts – permanent, portable and future portable capacity at our school buildings

Springboard proposal for Boundaries

• Kuper walked BRC members through Springboard proposal and supporting documentation
  • All information is found on the ISD Boundary Review website and will also be sent to committee members via email
• All elementary and middle schools across the top, including new schools – ES 16, ES 17 & MS 6
• October 1 Enrollment Count used
• Puts all students back into their “home” school – not necessarily where they are enrolled
• District has been broken up into “pieces”
  • Piece count = current enrollment plus students of staff who live outside District (spread across buildings)
  • Includes permanent and portable capacity
    • Note: MS 6 has no room for portables
    • Note: ES 16 & ES 17 will be smaller based on land constraints
  • Includes additional 5 – 10% expected growth
• Piece Count Key will show how District is broken out - 72 pieces
• School Feeder Patterns – shows flow of elementary schools to middle schools to high schools
  • Some elementary schools will be split going into middle school
• Maps that follow show the different variations of proposed boundaries – note that 10 schools boundaries were not touched (most in South End)
  • Bottom of map will show if it is EXISTING, NEW or NO CHANGES Boundary for school, with associated piece number shown in map

Overview of Next Meeting and Closure

• ACTION to BRC members – familiarize yourself with Springboard proposal and be ready to discuss at next meeting
• PDF files will be emailed to BRC members with enrollment and facility data, and springboard proposal with maps
• Reach out to Dr. Almy or Mr. Kuper with any questions in the interim
• Next meeting – December 17 @ 6PM
• Almy concluded meeting with thanks to all BRC members for their involvement

• Enrollment and Facility Data
• District Boundary SpringBoard

YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/HIZ2Briqa1Q

Agenda:

• Welcome
• Review and approve minutes from last meeting
• Questions from committee on (a) community correspondence and (b) springboard from last meeting with changes driven by stakeholder input
• Elementary Boundary Introduction
• Break out groups with driving question: Review new springboard and discuss any issues that come up in your groups
• Break out groups report out and answer clarifying questions
• Motions?
• Wrap up (next agenda and any additional homework)
• Adjourn

Official Action

The committee passed a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the 12/3 committee meeting. The committee also passed an amended motion to the updated springboard by a vote of 95%.

Discussion

For the second meeting, committee members were asked to approve the prior meeting’s minutes. There was discussion regarding community correspondence that had been received, as well as updates to the proposed springboard. Updates made included: 1. eliminating a proposed split at Sunset, 2. adjusting ES #16 boundaries, 3. keeping the Piece #54 neighborhoods at Discovery, 4. reassigning Piece #38 (Black Nugget) to PCMS and 5. recalculating splits at elementary schools. Committee members had a chance to break out into sessions to further discuss their thoughts on the updated springboard, and came back together to report out. A motion was made to approve the updated springboard, while an amended motion was made to approve the first three points of the springboard. This motion passed, while action was given to the Technical Team to refine information prior to the next meeting.

Up Next

Committee members will return for the next meeting on January 7. During this time in between meetings, the Technical Team will continue to refine boundary maps District-wide as well looking into middle school splits for further discussion. The next meeting will spend time walking through the updates to the amended springboard proposal with the Technical team, as well as starting to focus on middle school boundaries.

Welcome

• Boundary Review Committee (BRC) members were welcomed by Dr. Josh Almy and CFO Jake Kuper
• 39 voting BRC members were present, out of 40 total members, meeting quorum requirements
  • Quorum established at 12/3 meeting - 75% of all committee members
  • Quorum reached for 12/17 meeting - 98%

Agenda Review

• Walkthrough of agenda with BRC members
• Walkthrough of Boundary Review 2021 website, linked from the ISD webpage
  • All workgroup materials will be found at this location

Review and Approve Minutes from 12/3 Meeting

• BRC members were given a chance to review minutes from previous meeting
• Motion was made by Tyrell Hardtke, then seconded to approve minutes as presented
  • Results: All BRC voting members approved – MOTION CARRIED
  • Minutes will now be designated as official

Q&A from BRC Members re: Community Correspondence and Updated Springboard

• Based on community input, springboard has been updated to address concerns. Mr. Kuper walked BRC members through changes
  • Eliminate proposed split at Sunset so 100% of students feed to IMS
  • Adjust boundaries to eliminate split at ES #16 so 100% of students feed to PCMS
  • Piece #54 neighborhoods remains at Discovery; Piece #44 from Creekside will move to ES #17
  • Black Nugget Piece #38 reassigned to PCMS from IMS
  • Recalculation and confirmation of % splits at each elementary school
    • IVE 70%/30% split – 70% IMS & 30% MS #6
    • Sunny Hills 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% PCMS
    • Discovery 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% BLMS
  • BRC members then asked questions and provided feedback to committee from input received from their respective communities
  • Lisa Reeder (Discovery)
    • Why are we not allowing the general public to dial into the Zoom portion to express concerns directly?
      • Answer: BRC is a meeting of the public, not a public meeting (unlike School Board meetings). BRC is a dedicated workgroup (not a public body) with charter and goals. If we were able to meet in person, public would be allowed to sit in back of room and observe work but would not be able to intercede, present, etc. Public is welcome to watch on YouTube channel as well as use email inbox for input.
    • Interested in seeing map of 80%/20% Discovery split
      • Answer: Transportation provided map
    • Kelly Butterworth (Sunset)
      • Community pleased that Sunset is able to stay together
      • Why would Sunset go to IMS vs MS #6?
      • Why don’t Cougar Ridge and Sunset go together to same MS?
        • Answer: Sunset / Cougar Ridge was split about 20 years ago due to population. Sunset “could” work heading to new MS #6 – however, the first priority of MS #6 is to decrease students at Maywood MS. Due to this shift, Sunset will be placed at IMS.
      • Kuper mentioned Grand Ridge Kindergartners coming back onsite to Grand Ridge
      • Kuper also noted the feeder pattern, as originally presented, may have led to more confusion than necessary, especially as we are not currently discussing High School boundaries
    • Jo Ellen Tapper (Maple Hills Principal)
      • Discovery 80%/20% split to Middle Schools – interested in how High School boundaries play a role in this split
        • Answer: Current High School boundaries stay the same. Even though Discovery will be getting split for Middle School, students come back together in High School.
    • Marcelle Waldman (IVE)
      • We are pulling more students from IVE to MS #6. Does this include base of Squak Mtn? What are student numbers from Talus?
        • Answer: MS #6 is site constrained with no room for portables. Conservative student numbers are given. IMS is a larger building than MS #6. Talus has planned growth. From base of Squak to 900 corridor, approximately 67 students.
    • Questions / statements from community
      • Why can’t Lakemont attend one school? Why split between Cougar Ridge and Newcastle?
        • Answer: Due to population growth, numerically impossible to have all of Lakemont area into one building.
      • Pinecrest neighborhood has been moved from Clark to ES #16 on boundary map?
        • Answer: Pinecrest will remain at Clark
      • Creekside has been positive towards boundary changes

Elementary Boundary Introduction

• Kuper asked that BRC members, when reviewing the elementary boundaries referenced the following items:
  • Updated springboard that included five new updates
  • Maps of updated boundaries
  • Piece key
  • Noted that PLMS is getting larger and BLMS getting smaller, leading to recalculated splits
• Dana Rundle noted that in Piece #65, going to ES #17 there were 2 MS students going to a different MS
  • Transportation to look into this piece
• Lisa Reeder asked if in Pieces #49A & #50 if bus routes would be available – Yes

Group Breakout and Discussion

• Groups were sent into breakout rooms to review and discuss new springboard proposals and bring back any issues

Group Report Out

• Group 1 – Jo Ellen Tapper spokesperson
  • Even though not discussing High Schools, overall theme through discussion, concern about friendships from ES to MS to HS
  • Overall positive feedback on revisions making boundaries cleaner
  • Concerned about equity of 80%/20% splits – feelings of “otherness” from the smaller %
    • Could Discovery be split 50%/50%?
  • No boundary change for Grand Ridge even though kindergartners coming back?
    • Answer: Due to declining size of cohorts, no change needed.
  • Group 2 – Lisa Reeder spokesperson
    • Overall positive reception of new springboard
    • As with other groups, theme of High Schools through discussion
    • Wondering if MS #6 feeder patterns would change, sending some students back to Liberty?
      • Answer: The new High School will be built equidistance from Skyline and Issaquah High. Talus students most likely will go to Issaquah High.
    • Messaging of BLMS and PLMS students meeting up again in High School
    • Maps are tough to read – can icons be added for schools, and some major road names?
      • Answer: Transportation will work to update school locations and main arterials.
    • Group 3 – Erin McKee spokesperson
      • Sunset staying together to IMS is positive
      • Lakemont community (Sunset / Cougar Ridge) would like to attend MS together, but due to population size this is not attainable as priority is moving kids from Maywood
      • Concern for Newcastle students leaving MMS and going to MS #6 – will there be socioeconomic issues / perceptions?
    • Group 4 – Tim Baynes spokesperson
      • Positive overall about Creekside, PCMS, Sunny Hills boundary changes
      • MS conversation about socioeconomic perceptions
    • Group 5 – Carrie Reckling spokesperson
      • Positive overall to proposed changes
      • Pieces #49A & #50 – could these pieces go to Endeavour then BLMS? Grouping community together earlier?
      • ES #16 – will this building be overcrowded before opening? Or alleviated when ES #17 opens?
        • Answer: This is addressed by Piece #38 Black Nugget. ~ 146 students
      • Socioeconomic concerns
        • Answer: Socioeconomic data for ES’s and MS’s – overall District is homogenous, and re-boundaries historically do not take this into consideration. Racial data can be made available but will not influence boundaries.
      • Program placement concerns
        • Program placement and movement is done by District administration. New programs may be established, some programs may move, and other programs try to stay regionalized if possible (example: LRC 2).

Motions

• Kuper recapped what was said by the groups, as well as emerging themes of the conversation. He noted potential of some further homework on reviewing splits.
• Motion was made by Dana Randle to bring forward and approve all 5 updates to springboard proposal. Andrew Guss seconded.
  • Eliminate proposed split at Sunset so 100% of students feed to IMS
  • Adjust boundaries to eliminate split at ES #16 so 100% of students feed to PCMS
  • Piece #54 neighborhoods remains at Discovery; Piece #44 from Creekside will move to ES #17
  • Black Nugget Piece #38 reassigned to PCMS from IMS
  • Recalculation and confirmation of % splits at each elementary school
    • IVE 70%/30% split – 70% IMS & 30% MS #6
    • Sunny Hills 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% PCMS
    • Discovery 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% BLMS
  • Amendment was made to motion by Lisa Reeder. Her amendment asked to approve 1 – 3 updates ONLY from the updated springboard. Kelly Butterworth seconded.
    • Eliminate proposed split at Sunset so 100% of students feed to IMS
    • Adjust boundaries to eliminate split at ES #16 so 100% of students feed to PCMS
    • Piece #54 neighborhoods remains at Discovery; Piece #44 from Creekside will move to ES #17
  • Vote was taken on if members were ready to vote on motion.
  • Results: of 39 present members: 36 YES, 2 NO, 1 abstained
    • 92% - meets passage requirement of 75% - MOTION CARRIED
  • Vote than taken to vote on amended motion
    • Results: of 39 present members: 37 YES, 0 NO, 2 abstained
    • 95% - meets passage requirements of 75% - MOTION CARRIED

Overview of Next Meeting and Closure

• Technical Team will work on updating boundary maps and continue to look into details of Black Nugget piece and MS splits
• Focus will be on refining elementary boundary details as well as starting middle school boundary detail discussions
• Reach out to Dr. Almy or Mr. Kuper with any questions in the interim
• Next meeting – January 7 @ 6PM

• Updated Boundary Options 12-15-2020
• Boundary Pieces Elem and MS as of 12-15-2020
• School Feeder Patterns Draft (REVISED 12-15-2020)
• Intro Letter - BRC - Update to supporting materials from Technical Team (Potential Solutions)

YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/INK34mXEZHM 

Agenda:

• Welcome/Attendance
• Review and approve minutes from last meeting
• Questions from committee on (a) community correspondence and (b) springboard from last meeting
• Changes made to Springboard from prior meeting on the 17^th of December.
• Break out groups:
  • What additional questions/concerns are still on the table for Elementary Boundaries?
  • Report out from groups and answer any clarifying questions
• Motions?
• Looking ahead or if time allows: Middle School Boundaries
• Wrap up (next agenda and any additional homework)
• Adjourn

Official Action

The committee passed a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the 12/17 committee meeting. The committee also passed a motion to the updated springboard by a vote of 98%.

Discussion

For the third meeting, committee members were asked to approve the prior meeting’s minutes. There was discussion regarding community correspondence that had been received, as well as updates to the proposed springboard. Updates made included: 1. keeping Piece #38 (Black Nugget) at PCMS, 2. Elementary splits at (a) IVE, (b) Sunny Hills and a (c) proposed Discovery boundary change to Endeavour that would feed into Beaver Lake MS, 3. combining the Lakemont community schools (Sunset and Cougar Ridge) feed into IMS, and 4. technical corrections of pieces being moved into their appropriate geographical area. Committee members had a chance to break out into sessions to further discuss their thoughts on the updated springboard, and came back together to report out. An initial motion was made to approve the first, second part (a) and (b) (while striking part c) and the fourth points of the updated springboard. A second motion was made, then seconded, to approve the first and fourth points of the updated springboard. This motion passed, while action was given to the Technical Team to refine information prior to the next meeting.

Up Next

Committee members will return for the next meeting on January 21. During this time in between meetings, the Technical Team will continue to refine a few smaller neighborhoods as well as looking into different boundary configurations for Clark. The next meeting will spend time walking through any additional updates to the amended springboard.

Welcome

• Boundary Review Committee (BRC) members were welcomed by Dr. Josh Almy and CFO Jake Kuper
• 40 voting BRC members were present, out of 40 total members, meeting quorum requirements
  • Quorum established at 12/3 meeting - 75% of all committee members
  • Quorum reached for 1/7 meeting - 100%

Agenda Review

• Walkthrough of agenda with BRC members

Review and Approve Minutes from 12/17 Meeting

• BRC members were given a chance to review minutes from previous meeting
  • Comment made re: BRC is a meeting of the public, should this be changed to meeting before the public? Per Mr. Kuper, semantics the same.
• Motion was made by Marta Burnett, then seconded to approve minutes as presented
  • Results: 37 BRC voting members approved – MOTION CARRIED
  • Minutes will now be designated as official

Q&A from BRC Members re: Community Correspondence and Updated Springboard

• Based on community input, springboard has been updated to address concerns. Mr. Kuper walked BRC members through changes
  • Black Nugget Piece #38 reviewed and will continue to stay at PCMS
    1. Needed for transportation efficiency
    2. Closer to feeder school
  • Elementary Splits:
    1. IVE 70%/30% split – 70% IMS & 30% MS #6 – allows for future growth in corridor
    2. Sunny Hills 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% PCMS – remains split
    3. Discovery proposed 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% BLMS
       1. Solution: change portion of Discovery boundary (49A and 50) to Endeavour
       2. New Endeavour boundary feeds to BLMS with no split

• Lakemont Community wishes to keep Sunset and Cougar Ridge together and feed into IMS. Tradeoffs occur, including IVE 100% feeding into MS #6 which allows not much room for growth. Potential to split Clark. Concern of potential growth planned to occur on valley floor per City of Issaquah.
• Technical corrections
  1. Piece 65 moves from ES #17 to ES #16
  2. Piece 47 and Piece 66A adjusted to PLMS boundary line
• BRC members then asked questions and provided feedback to committee from input received from their respective communities
• Christy Otley (Clark Principal)
  • Piece #38 (Black Nugget) – slated to go to ES #16, would it then move to ES #17 when that opens?

Answer: No. This piece will stay with ES #16, will not be moved twice.

• Lisa Reeder (Discovery)
  • Can email correspondence be distributed earlier to BRC members?

Answer: Yes. Due to high volume of email input (over 300+) we are trying to balance sending all community input out for BRC members to review in a timely fashion. Administrative Team can work on earlier cutoff date.

• LeAnn Tuupo (Sunset Principal)
  • Are there potential growth numbers assigned to middle schools?

Answer: Projected growth by building is difficult to predict until boundaries have been established, and effects of pandemic are throwing off modeling predictions used in the past. City of Issaquah has large housing projects forecasted out for the next ten years. South end of District could see more growth, dependent on Urban Growth Boundary Line (UGBL) movement

Changes made to December 17 Springboard

• Piece #38 (Black Nugget) – keeping this piece homed to PCMS (as opposed to moving to IMS) to increase efficiency of transportation as well as keeping close to feeder school
• Elementary Splits – note than when splits do occur, this is to help balance out middle school populations
  1. IVE being split 70% to IMS and 30% to MS #6 will allow for future growth in the corridor, and prevent IMS from overcrowding
  2. Sunny Hills being split 80% to PLMS and 20% to PCMS will remain split
  3. Discovery is proposed to be 80% split to PLMS and 20% split to BLMS
     1. Part of this portion inside Discovery could be moved to Endeavour (49A and 50)
     2. If this were to occur, Endeavour would feed into BLMS with no split

• During last boundary change (10+ years ago), these pieces were moved from Endeavour and BLMS to current boundaries. Community was not pleased with the move at that time.
• Community has expressed no interest now in making these boundary changes and would like to remain at Discovery and Pine Lake.
• Kathy Keegan (Discovery Principal)
• During earlier BRC meeting, it was discussed that Discovery boundary stays the same. Why are we looking to change now?

Answer: This was just a proposal to move this piece to Endeavour to have these students together earlier as cohort if they were then heading to BLMS. This proposal was not voted on, and therefore can be struck if needed.

• Lakemont community asking for Sunset and Cougar Ridge to feed into IMS.
  • If IMS were to obtain both schools populations, Clark would have to be split. However, this could eliminate split at IVE.
• Technical Corrections
  • Piece 65 was part of ES #17 and will be moved to ES #16 – just one student in this block
  • Pieces 47 & 66A were adjusted to PLMS boundary line
• Kelly Butterworth (Sunset)
  • If Lakemont community comes together at IMS, and Clark is then split, could it be split via communities that are closer to PCMS vs communities closer to IMS? (split via I-90) Since Piece 38 has ~ 79 students going to PCMS? Could all if Sunset, Clark and Cougar Ridge go to IMS? Community needs to understand the future growth plans from the cities.

Answer: If IMS contains SS, CL and CR, this would leave no room for future valley growth into IMS. Mr. Kuper will send out the Urban Growth Plan (UGP) to BRC members for review. These plans show development and re-development of areas in Issaquah.

• Roselyn Osuagwu (Challenger)
  • Once boundaries are established, can we keep kids at current school one year to finish out their time in building? Grandfather them in?

Answer: Historically, allowing students to remain in current building after boundaries are changed has not worked. This process as seen in the past takes numerous years for the cleanup of the boundaries to actually show population shift in buildings. One exception is when a new high school opens, seniors are allowed to finish out their year at their current building.

Group Breakout and Discussion

• Groups were sent into breakout rooms to review and discuss new springboard proposals and bring back any issues

Group Report Out

• Group 1 – Jo Ellen Tapper spokesperson
  • Not much support of moving neighborhoods to Endeavour
  • Concerns about equity and building size. Is this committee’s top priority right sizing buildings? Communities may have hurt feelings, comparing newer and older schools, pitting neighborhoods against each other – how can we welcome in new families?

  Answer: Time will be spent to help new school community come together after boundary change – addressed with new communities, PTSAs, outreach, etc

  • Communication out to community is key for reasons why we are changing boundaries
  • More natural to split Clark than IVE
  • Transportation costs – are we spending more time bussing students to schools out of neighborhoods
  • Small communities going to Sunny Hills vs ES #16 which is geographically closer – Rainbow Lake Ranch and Highland Creek

  Answer: Technical Team to look into these neighborhoods.

• Group 2 – Lisa Reeder spokesperson
  • OK with #1 and #4 proposals
  • Piece #54 remained with Discovery, so why can’t the other neighborhoods remain as well? Even though it’s been stated that change is harder on parents, many students came together to sign petition to not change their boundaries
  • Endeavour is not a close walking school to these communities.
  • Lakemont support from IVE rep is mixed – while excited about IVE staying together, will there be transportation issues sending more buses up and down Lakemont?
  • Clark being split to support this is new direction. What will this community think? In order to support the Lakemont combination, another school has to be split.
  • IVE & Newcastle will go to MS #6 but will split at HS again – with NC going to Liberty and IVE going to Issaquah HS.
• Group 3 – Erin McKee spokesperson
  • OK with #1 and #4 proposals
  • Discovery piece (2C) – concerned about transportation efficiency and student experience – will they spend more time commuting than needed?
  • Lakemont – some IVE students live very close to IMS yet we will send them to MS #6?
  • Newcastle and IVE communities don’t share any physical boundaries
• Group 4 – Tim Baynes spokesperson
  • OK with #1 and #4 proposals
  • Sunny Hills communities OK with split
  • Discovery – Keeping Piece 54 along with Piece 49 & 50 here leads to a large population
  • Lakemont – Clark community may not have had ample time to weigh in on this split proposal if Sunset, Cougar Ridge and IVE stay together
• Group 5 – Carrie Reckling spokesperson
  • OK with #1, #2A, #2C and #4 proposals
  • 2B – Rainbow Ranch – look into moving to ES #16 away from Sunny Hills

  Answer: Transportation will look into this piece, was moved to SH due to PLMS feeder patterns

  • Lakemont – IMS will become a much bigger school, how do we balance numbers
  • Concerned about impact on Clark and IMS communities

Motions

• Kuper recapped what was said by the groups, as well as emerging themes of the conversation. He noted potential of some further homework on part of Technical Team.
• Almy noted the committee should not bring a motion forward if further discussion needed, and additional meetings can be scheduled in future.
• Lisa Reeder asked question if motion could be brought forward to approve #1 and #4, and to strike out #2C in updates to springboard proposal.
• Tera Coyle asked if there was another neighborhood that could be taken into Endeavour
• Motion was made by Andrew Guss to bring forward and approve #1, #2A & #2B, #4 and strike #2C in updates to springboard proposal.
  • Black Nugget Piece #38 reviewed and will continue to stay at PCMS
  • Elementary Splits:
    1. IVE 70%/30% split – 70% IMS & 30% MS #6 – allows for future growth in corridor
    2. Sunny Hills 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% PCMS – remains split
    3. Discovery proposed 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% BLMS
       • Solution: change portion of Discovery boundary (49A and 50) to Endeavour
       • New Endeavour boundary feeds to BLMS with no split

• Technical corrections
  1. Piece 65 moves from ES #17 to ES #16
  2. Piece 47 and Piece 66A adjusted to PLMS boundary line
• Motion was made by Dana Rundle to bring forward and approve #1 and #4 in updates to springboard proposal.
  • Black Nugget Piece #38 reviewed and will continue to stay at PCMS
  • Technical corrections
    1. Piece 65 moves from ES #17 to ES #16
    2. Piece 47 and Piece 66A adjusted to PLMS boundary line
  • This motion was seconded.
  • Vote was taken on motion
  • Results: of 40 present members: 39 YES, 1 abstained
    • 98% - meets passage requirement of 75% - MOTION CARRIED

Overview of Next Meeting and Closure

• Technical Team will look into pieces of Highland Creek and Rainbow Lake Ranch moving to ES #16 as well as a potential Clark split.
• Free and Reduced Lunch Rates were pulled up to inform all of any misperceptions that could occur by combining certain schools together.
• Focus will be on continuing to refine final pieces of elementary boundary details as well as starting middle school boundary detail discussions
• Reach out to Dr. Almy or Mr. Kuper with any questions in the interim
• Next meeting – January 21 @ 6PM

• Middle School Boundaries - BLMS
• Discovery Endeavour Proposal
• Boundary Pieces Elem and MS as of 1-4-2021
• Technical Corrections - Elementary 16
• Intro Letter - BRC - Review of Community Input and Potential Solutions

YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/fG9iQAOSl2I

Agenda:

• Welcome and attendance
• Review agenda and approve minutes from last meeting
• Questions from the committee from the past two weeks and community correspondence
• Review of final portions of elementary boundaries not yet completed
• Break Out Groups
• Report Outs from Break Out groups
• Group discussion and motions
• Agenda planning for February 4^th and possible scheduling of an additional meeting
• Adjourn

Official Action

The committee passed a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the 1/7 committee meeting. The committee also passed a motion to the amended springboard proposal to date by a vote of 97%.

Discussion

For the fourth meeting, committee members were asked to approve the prior meeting’s minutes. There was discussion regarding community correspondence that had been received, as well as updates to the proposed springboard. Updates made included: 1. Elementary splits at IVE, Sunny Hills and Discovery, 2. combining the Lakemont community schools (Sunset and Cougar Ridge) to feed into IMS, and 3. a Newcastle proposal that would allow for Newcastle students to continue at Maywood MS, while Maple Hills students would be moved to IMS. Committee members had a chance to break out into sessions to further discuss their thoughts on the updated springboard, and came back together to report out. A motion was made to approve the springboard proposals as amended to date, effectively adopting #1 (current elementary splits), while no longer accepting #2 and #3 (Lakemont and Newcastle proposals). This motion was seconded. This motion passed, while action was given to the Technical Team to refine information prior to the next meeting.

Up Next

Committee members will return for the final meeting on February 4. During this time in between meetings, the Technical Team will make a few technical corrections as well as looking into cleaning up District wide maps with the new boundaries. The next meeting will spend time discussing transitions and how we build new communities as they come together.

Welcome

• Boundary Review Committee (BRC) members were welcomed by Dr. Josh Almy and CFO Jake Kuper
• 40 voting BRC members were present, out of 40 total members, meeting quorum requirements
  • Quorum established at 12/3 meeting - 75% of all committee members
  • Quorum reached for 1/21 meeting - 100%

Agenda & Charter Review

• Walkthrough of agenda with BRC members
• Walkthrough of charter with BRC members

Review and Approve Minutes from 1/7 Meeting

• BRC members were given a chance to review minutes from previous meeting
  • Comment made re: information regarding Highland Creek and Rainbow Lake Ranch moving to ES #16 not shown under breakout discussion?
    • This action is shown under overview of next meeting as action for Technical Team
  • Motion was made by Tyrell Hardtke, then seconded to approve minutes as presented
    • Results: 40 BRC voting members approved – MOTION CARRIED
    • Minutes will now be designated as official

Recommendation Process to Superintendent

• Almy and Mr. Kuper walked through process of how the BRC recommendations work
• After meetings are concluded, BRC recommendation is given to the Superintendent
• Superintendent will review and:
  • Accept the recommendation as presented and report out to School Board
  • Alter the recommendation and report out to School Board
• Superintendent has the authority to set school boundaries, therefore the Board will not vote on boundaries
• Question was asked if Superintendent had accepted previous committee recommendations in whole; per Mr. Kuper, last two boundary reviews were accepted in whole and not altered

BRC Members Roles and Responsibilities Review

• Kuper brought up the roles and responsibilities that each BRC member signed prior to joining board
• He acknowledged the sometimes difficult and emotional decisions this committee is tasked with, and thanked all members for not only representing their own communities but serving a broader role for the good of the District as a whole

Q&A from BRC Members re: Community Correspondence and Updated Springboard

• Based on community input, springboard has been updated to address concerns. Mr. Kuper walked BRC members through changes
  • Elementary Splits:
    1. IVE 70%/30% split – 70% IMS & 30% MS #6 – allows for future growth in corridor
    2. Sunny Hills 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% PCMS – remains split
    3. Discovery proposed 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% BLMS
       1. Further discussion needed on PLMS / BLMS split per community input

• Lakemont Community wishes to keep Sunset and Cougar Ridge together and feed into IMS. Tradeoffs occur, including IVE 100% feeding into MS #6 and inflating population of IMS which allows not much room for growth at this building. Concern of potential growth planned to occur on valley floor per City of Issaquah.
• “New” Newcastle Proposal from community: Keeping Newcastle at Maywood MS and moving Maple Hills to IMS. Proposal is worthy of discussion but falls short number-wise in committee’s goals of lowering Maywood’s enrollment. Community input is trending against moving Maple Hills.

• BRC members then asked questions and provided feedback to committee from input received from their respective communities
• Kelly Butterworth (Sunset)
  • Community is interested in transportation piece – sometimes routes (from Lakemont to PCMS as example) can be 50 minutes long. Do we need more analysis of bus routes? Is our hypothesis utilizing transportation in the most effective way? What about capacity of buildings?

  Answer: Mr. Kuper believes the Technical Team has done due diligence to utilize bus routes to correct capacity. In some areas (Highlands as example) we make less stops, and load as many students as possible at one stop to maximize efficiency. Routing patterns also help gain efficiency. For building capacity, not all schools are built to hold the same amount of students; and even if a building has classroom capacity, other common areas (lunchrooms, library, etc) may be impacted, as experienced by Maywood currently.

• Lisa Reeder (Discovery)
  • Was socio-economic impact part of our original charter? Some neighborhoods are very concerned about having students moved to a new building at this time, and have expressed this via petition. Also, if we did discuss High School boundaries at this time, we may have been able to explore different options for some impacted communities.

  Answer: We did not call out socio-economic impacts in the charter but do recognize the effects felt in some neighborhoods. It was decided to not include high school boundaries in this discussion due to the very large task it will be to walk through those boundaries. However, we can build upon the work done in this committee to start the conversation for the high school boundaries.

• Tyrell Hardtke (Apollo)
  • Do we know which neighborhoods may have contributed to overcrowding at Maywood? We’ve seen rapid growth in area around Newcastle and Apollo. Also must take into consideration potential equity issues that appear at different areas of the District.

  Answer: The South End has seen rapid growth over the last decade on any available land not hindered by the Urban Growth Boundary Line (UGBL). Newcastle Commons (approx. 900 units) was one of largest recent developments. It should be noted that Liberty is only fed by Maywood (one middle school) whereas Issaquah High and Skyline are each fed by two middle schools respectively. (Note that Gibson Ek has no set boundaries, as any student of proper grade may apply to attend from across the District).

• Trisha Marshall (Newcastle)
  • When springboard was originally proposed, was there capacity utilization at Maywood and IMS?

  Answer: Currently in District there are 5000 middle school students. Ideally, by adding a sixth middle school, every school could be “right sized” to 850 – 900 students. We need to ensure from an operational standpoint we have potential growth allowable at all buildings that will experience future growth (IMS, for example). The South end has the most growth potential IF the UGBL were to change, since this area has most open land. At this time, the valley floor in Issaquah is slated for growth over the next decade. It was noted when Briarwood went through remodel, growth of the area did present itself. 

• Tod Wood (Newcastle Principal)
  • Appreciated the time and effort put in by the community who came up with the Newcastle proposal, and noted he saw value in that proposal staying at Maywood as well as those families wishing to move to MS #6. He met with community members for Q&A to discuss new proposal in detail, and shared with the BRC via chat the document.
• Amy Myhre (Endeavour)
  • It was noted in some community correspondence that middle schools were not built the same and some schools may have more capacity than others?

  Answer: Correct – in the case of PLMS and BLMS, their building base shows more area for students at PLMS vs BLMS (930 vs 790), however BLMS has current portable space of 260 and PLMS has portable space of 56, allowing BLMS to hold more students overall. Cost to put portables down at any location can be quite costly so that is not in the plan at this time at PLMS (although space does exist if future needs warrant portables).

• Erin McKee (Maywood Principal)
  • Is growth potential different in unincorporated King County, vs City of Renton or City of Issaquah, etc?

  Answer: This is dependent on UGBL. Each unincorporated area does have certain targets they are expected to meet, set by state statutes.

Group Breakout and Discussion

• Groups were sent into breakout rooms to review and discuss updated springboard proposals and bring back any issues

Group Report Out

• Group 5 – Carrie Reckling spokesperson
  • OK with adopting springboard as amended
  • Noted that every school has passionate communities
• Group 4 – Tim Baynes spokesperson
  • OK with adopting springboard as amended
  • Still looking for feedback on Rainbow Lake Ranch and Highland Park

Answer: Technical Committee to make technical corrections and present at next meeting

• Group 3 – Erin McKee spokesperson
  • OK with adopting springboard as amended
  • Lots of conversation on Lakemont and Newcastle proposal
• Group 2 – Lisa Reeder spokesperson
  • Not a proponent of the Lakemont community proposal
  • Group did not reach consensus on Discovery split

• Group 1 – JoEllen Tapper spokesperson
  • OK with PLMS / BLMS split
  • With some original pieces moved from Discovery to Endeavour back to Discovery are we back in balance?

  Answer: Numbers not numerically balanced but they are correct, numbers at Discovery will remain higher.

  • Maple Hills community moving to IMS – when it came down to numbers, didn’t work numerically since Maple Hills is not expected to grow, and they are smallest school in District
  • Newcastle proposal was shared by Tod Wood, and he wanted to recognize efforts put in by community on the data analysis
  • Keeping equity of all schools in mind very important
  • If Maple Hills were to go to IMS this would raise FRL rate at IMS to be highest of all middle schools

Motions

• Kuper recapped what was said by the groups, as well as emerging themes of the conversation. He noted technical corrections needed for Rainbow Lake Ranch and Highland Park, and noted the Technical Team would work to provide clean maps for next meeting.
• All BRC members were thanked for handling these highly emotional discussions with grace
• Motion was made by Courtney Eldridge to bring forward and adopt the springboard proposal as amended to date. Effects would be to adopt #1 and strike #2 and #3 (as shown below):
  • Current Elementary Splits
    1. IVE 70%/30% split – 70% IMS & 30% MS #6 – allows for future growth in corridor
    2. Sunny Hills 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% PCMS – remains split
    3. Discovery 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% BLMS
  • Lakemont Proposal – no longer acceptable to committee
  • Newcastle Proposal – no longer acceptable to committee
• This motion was seconded.
• Discussion around the motion was presented by BRC members
  • Lisa Reeder (Discovery) – 430 people signed petition to stay at Discovery. While neighborhoods have received some concessions to stay at Discovery, we can still ask for all neighborhoods to be included
  • Andrew Guss (Maple Hills) – Maple Hills community is in support of this proposal and believes it takes into account equity across District. Maple Hills serves Passage Point community, which would have been quite an impact on some of our most vulnerable students. Issaquah – Hobart Road has congestion issues and would have made commute to IMS unbearable for most in MH community. While 900 is not great to travel, better than Issaquah-Hobart.
  • Trisha Marshall (Newcastle) – Consider grandfathering in students to their original schools for one more year, especially after this last year students have experienced
  • Mark Clemens (Clark) – Clark is large geographical area, and denying access to community resources in downtown Issaquah could be detrimental if students moved to different middle schools.
  • Marcelle Waldman (IVE) – Keeping IVE a split community makes the most sense, kids are resilient and we’ll see our friends again in high school
  • Leann Tuupo (Sunset principal) – During last boundary review, Lakemont community felt the process was done “to them”, not “with them”. Please keep this community in the forefront of the conversation in the future.
  • Erin McKee (Maywood principal) – Top goal for Sunset not being split was for community cohesion, and same can be said of both the Lakemont and the Newcastle proposal. Maywood is a large school but we need to move students out of this building – currently looking at having to add a fourth lunch period. For the benefit of all students at Maywood, we need to relieve the high enrollment numbers.
• Vote was taken on motion
• Results: of 39 present members at this time in meeting: 38 YES, 1 NO
  • 97% - meets passage requirement of 75% - MOTION CARRIED

Overview of Next Meeting and Closure

• Technical Team will correct pieces of Highland Creek and Rainbow Lake Ranch moving to ES #16.
• Technical Team will also clean up District wide maps to clearly show new boundary lines
• Next meeting will focus on transitions and how do we build these new communities as they come together
• Thanks were given in support of the work accomplished by the Technical and Administrative Teams
• Thanks were also given by School Board President Suzanne Weaver to all members of the BRC for the difficult job they were tasked with in coming up with these recommendations
• Reach out to Dr. Almy or Mr. Kuper with any questions in the interim
• Next meeting – February 4 @ 6PM

• Central Issaquah Plan Excerpt
• 5-28-2020 CFP 2020_FINAL1 Generation Rates
• Current City of Issaquah Active Projects with student enrollment estimates
• Intro Letter - BRC - Review of Community Input and Potential Solutions - January 21

YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/7qROWBe2Sio

Agenda:

• Welcome and attendance
• Review agenda and approve minutes from last meeting
• Technical corrections, status
• Transitions, tools, what is next?
• Thanks and Closure – September
• Adjourn

Official Action

The committee passed a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the 1/21 committee meeting.

Discussion

For the fifth and final meeting, committee members were asked to approve the prior meeting’s minutes. Superintendent Ron Thiele thanked all members of the committee for their great work done on behalf of the District and the community. Technical corrections were reviewed, and new District boundary maps were shared. Elementary, Middle School and Special Services Administrators spoke on what transitional steps are in place to ensure all families being moved to new schools will feel included in their new school environments. The meeting concluded with additional thanks from the committee’s co-facilitators to the committee members for their tremendous work during the boundary review process. This concludes the elementary and middle school Boundary Review Committee for 2021.

Up Next

The Superintendent will continue to review the committee’s recommendations, and will present to the School Board on Thursday, February 11. Boundaries will then be considered official, and communication will begin to affected families who will be moving schools for the 2021-22 school year.

Welcome

• Boundary Review Committee (BRC) members were welcomed by Dr. Josh Almy and CFO Jake Kuper
• 38 voting BRC members were present, out of 40 total members, meeting quorum requirements
  • Quorum established at 12/3 meeting - 75% of all committee members
  • Quorum reached for 2/4 meeting - 95%

Agenda & Charter Review

• Walkthrough of agenda with BRC members

Review and Approve Minutes from 1/21 Meeting

• BRC members were given a chance to review minutes from previous meeting
• Motion was made by Dana Rundle, then seconded to approve minutes as presented
  • Results: 38 BRC voting members approved – MOTION CARRIED
  • Minutes will now be designated as official

Superintendent Words of Thanks to the BRC

• Superintendent Ron Thiele thanked all BRC members for their outstanding work done on behalf of the District and the community
• Superintendent Thiele was very impressed by the dialogue, professionalism and creativity the BRC members exhibited during the process, as well as managing a virtual boundary review so successfully
• He has reviewed the springboard plans, received feedback from Dr. Almy, CFO Kuper and Transportation and feels confident these plans are achievable
• Recommendation will be presented to School Board next Thursday, Feb 11; all BRC members will receive notification prior to meeting

Technical Corrections

• Rainbow Lake Ranch neighborhood had asked BRC to look into moving from Sunny Hills to ES #16, located across Issaquah-Pine Lake Road
  • If this move were to occur – no bussing would be available (due to proximity) and students would have a long crossing across busy road
  • Result: Due to safety considerations, decision was made to keep this neighborhood at Sunny Hills
• Sunset and ES #17 had minor adjustments to correct boundary maps

New Boundary Maps

• Kuper brought up new District maps to show BRC members how boundaries had changed
  • 2 Elementary School boundaries changed (Sunny Hills and Clark to ES #16);
  • ES #17 (when built) will have Creekside boundary change
  • All Middle School boundaries have changed to feed into MS #6
• All new boundary maps are posted onto District website
• New boundaries will be good starting point for future High School Boundary discussions

Q&A from BRC Members

• Kelly Butterworth (Sunset) – Question has arose in community with new MS boundary changes – is my student now going from a less populated building (PCMS) to overcrowded (IMS)? Have updates been made on the spreadsheets showing the “new” estimated enrollment numbers after all pieces have been moved so we can share with community members that may have this concern?

  ANSWER: Mr. Kuper will verify spreadsheet is updated with new enrollment figures. As it currently stands, when MS #6 opens, it will house 716 students. IMS will go from 975 to 820, and PCMS will go from 1028 to 762. One goal of committee was to “right size” Middle Schools, which will average around ~ 800 students each (note that MS #6 is built smaller than other middle schools due to building footprint).

• Amy Myhre (Endeavour) – Even though this committee was not tasked with placing programs, any updates if MERLIN, SciTech, etc will be moved or expanded?

  ANSWER: Kuper mentioned these determinations are close to being finalized, after final boundaries have been established, and enrollment reviewed.

Transitions and Next Steps

• Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools Jodi Bongard shared plans of how we will ease the transition for families and welcome them to their new elementary schools
  • Notification letters and FAQ’s will be sent to all students who will be moved to new schools
  • Transportation E-Link will be updated with new boundary information so parents can confirm their home school
  • Partnerships with PTSA – reachout has occurred with Issaquah PTSA Council to start process of creating new PTSA for ES #16 and how parents can get involved
  • New school lists are being created for ES #16, Clark and Sunny Hills, and transition committees, with support from Principals at these schools, are being developed
  • Future opportunities to visit new schools, virtual tours, meet and greets with students and staff
  • Establishing new mascot, school colors, logowear, etc for ES16 with input from students and parents
  • Placement meetings to occur with students moving schools so they will have familiar faces in each class; also ensuring any student with special needs has proper support in new school
  • Communication to families throughout the transition process
• Principal Tera Coyle, who will be leading ES #16, reiterated Ms. Bongard’s points and is excited to learn who her new families are to welcome them into their new school
  • She will also reach out to those families and ensure parents from each feeder school will be part of the core transition team
  • Communication should be sent out to all new students of ES #16 on February 22
• Susan Mundell, Executive Director of Elementary Education, also mentioned in addition to front line support of building Principals, her, in addition to Assistant Superintendent Bongard, will be available for support from the District level
• Dana Bailey, Executive Director of Special Services mentioned that ES #16 will have an LRC 1 program, along with at least 1 LRC 2 classroom.
  • Special Education students have been realigned within their high school boundary patterns, and she is working on middle school alignment currently
• Jason Morse, Executive Director of Middle Schools shared plans of how families will be transitioned into their new middle schools, and also expressed thanks to the community at large for supporting the building of new schools
  • MS Principals are consulting with ES Principals for placement of students, including transition meetings for students with special needs
  • Notification letters and FAQ’s will be sent to all students who will be moved to new schools
  • Where Everybody Belongs (WEB) Program established at Middle Schools that allow older students to help younger students adjust to middle school experience
  • Future opportunities to visit new schools, virtual tours, meet and greets with students and staff
• Principal Erin McKee, who will be leading MS #6, mentioned community can provide input for the new principal for Maywood (of which she is the current Principal)
  • Core Team is looking forward to welcoming new students to new building, and considers this energizing work in a time of uncertainty
  • MS #6 will be sending out surveys for students and parents on ideas for mascot and school name
  • Letters will be sent to all students transitioning on February 22
• Comment was made that incoming 7^th grade students may not have even set foot inside a middle school before, and this will be taken into consideration as part of welcoming them to new building

Closure and Adjournment

• Almy thanked all BRC members, including the Technical and Administrative team, for their dedication and hard work during this process
• CFO Kuper also gave thanks to the BRC members and their support of the process for diving into the complexities of a virtual boundary review during a global pandemic
• A “virtual” cake was shared by Dr. Almy to all in support of their time and effort
• Next steps include the Superintendent presenting recommendations to the School Board on Thursday, Feb 11, then transition teams will begin communication with affected families

• All Issaquah School District School Maps
• Clark Elementary - IMS - IHS
• Creekside Elementary - PLMS - Skyline
• Creekside Elementary (Future)
• Cougar Ridge Elementary - MS #6 - IHS
• Discovery Elementary - PLMS - Skyline --- Discovery Elementary - BLMS - Skyline
• Elementary #16 - PCMS - IHS
• Elementary #17 - PLMS - Skyline
• Endeavour Elementary - BLMS - Skyline
• IVE - MS #6 - IHS --- IVE - IMS - IHS
• Maywood Middle School (New)
• Newcastle Elementary - MS #6 - Liberty
• Rainbow Lake Ranch
• Sunny Hills Elementary - PLMS - Skyline --- Sunny Hills Elementary - PCMS - IHS
• Sunset Elementary - IMS - IHS