Jamestown board approves elementary boundary plan aimed at balancing Title I rates

The Jamestown Public School Board on March 3 approved “boundary option 1B,” a districtwide elementary redraw the facilities committee recommended to better balance student demographics and operational needs.

Board member Aaron Roberts moved to approve the plan; board member Jason Rohrer seconded. The motion carried unanimously by roll call: Owen McKenna, Jamie Vare, Heidi Larson, Jason Rohrer, Jacob Meyer, Dan Tweeden, Aaron Roberts, Steven Belcamp and Melissa Gleason all voted yes.

The board and facilities committee framed 1B as the more “intrusive” choice in the short term because it affects more families immediately, but said it yields recurring benefits by compressing differences in poverty rates between buildings and improving operational balance.

Facilities committee member Aaron Roberts told the board the committee compared three models and concluded that option 1B, though it moves more students initially, improves demographic balance and reduces the chance of needing future boundary adjustments if other facility changes happen. “There is a recurring benefit in being able to balance that demographic model, which then relates into operational efficiencies and how we can better instruct the kids,” Roberts said.

Superintendent Doctor Lehi and staff described implementation details discussed by the committee. Staff said the district would honor existing waivers for currently enrolled students in grades K–4 (so those students may remain at their waiver school), while new registrants would be placed at their resident boundary school once the new lines take effect. The district plans to limit new waivers except in narrowly defined circumstances (for example to relieve an over-cap class in a single grade at a single building).

Officials also described operational guardrails: recommended class-size caps of 22 students for kindergarten through second grade and 24 for grades three through five; a 10-block walking radius for free busing and bus service outside that radius; and a waiver process that could re-open only if a specific grade at a specific building exceeded the cap. Staff said they had asked transportation contractor Harlow’s for a routing impact estimate but had not yet received a firm number.

The district emphasized Title I implications: under the 1A model the elementary poverty-range would be about 26%–52%; under 1B that range would compress to roughly 39%–49%. Board members and staff said the compressed range would help equalize access to Title I services and expand eligibility for after-school programming that requires Title I participation. “One of the benefits is that if we get all of our schools to Title I eligible, every family could have access to after-school programming,” staff said.

Board members asked about splitting siblings when a family holds an existing waiver for one child and a new child registers in the district. Staff said those “legacy waivers” would be the main family decision point: if a family has a current waiver for an older child, the family would choose whether to keep that child at the waiver school or move both children into the new resident boundary school.

Board clerk Christie conducted the roll call for the motion; no board member declared a conflict on the boundary vote. Roberts and the facilities committee said they would publish maps and a detailed FAQ within about two weeks and urged families to wait for the FAQ and mapping tools tied to PowerSchool registration.

The decision follows months of committee work and was described as intended to reduce recurring imbalances across elementary schools and to simplify future facility planning.

Planning next steps include publishing detailed boundary maps, finalizing an FAQ for families, implementing the waiver policy for incoming registrants, and scheduling additional facilities meetings to incorporate summer-project planning and any follow-up issues raised by families.