Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attendance Boundaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District consultant outlines boundary criteria, functional-capacity review and timeline for attendance-zone changes
Summary
Consultant RSP presented a draft framework and timeline for attendance-boundary planning, including 10 evaluation criteria, a functional-capacity analysis of buildings and a public-feedback schedule that could lead to boundary proposals this summer.
Plainfield SD 202 moved forward on a districtwide attendance-boundary review after consultant RSP presented draft guiding principles, a set of 10 boundary-evaluation criteria and a functional-capacity analysis of every school.
RSP told the Board of Education on Feb. 26 that the district’s process — which began in December — will use enrollment projections, program needs and a new diversity-index tool (built with census data on income, housing values and educational attainment) to analyze potential boundary scenarios. The consultant said the goal is to return recommended guiding principles to the board by Friday and to bring scenario options to the public for feedback in July and August, with a board adoption target in February of the following year.
RSP said the boundary work would stay within District 202’s existing external boundary and focus on internal attendance zones. The consultant listed 10 criteria to evaluate plans: contiguous attendance areas, demographic considerations, duration of boundaries, feeder completeness (elementary → middle → high), capital and operational fiscal impacts, neighborhoods intact, projected enrollment and building utilization, number of students impacted, and transportation considerations. RSP emphasized the criteria can conflict — for example, minimizing the number of students moved may reduce how long a boundary lasts — and asked the board to prioritize its top three criteria to guide scenario development.
The presentation included a “functional capacity” analysis for each building that differs from raw classroom counts. RSP defined functional capacity as a realistic midpoint that accounts for core-room, elective-room and program-room usage (for example, pull-out special-education spaces), classroom layouts and current programming. The consultant said similar floor plans can have different functional capacities depending on specialized programs and how districts staff buildings.
RSP showed enrollment projections through the late 2020s and said some middle schools are approaching or exceeding functional capacity in the consultant’s forecasts. The firm recommended using those projections to identify where additional space or different boundary solutions may be needed and warned the district to expect tradeoffs between long-lasting boundaries and the number of students who must move.
RSP also reported on a small survey of 18 participants from the district strategic-planning session. Survey respondents prioritized projected enrollment/building utilization, duration of boundaries and operational fiscal considerations as top criteria. RSP said public comment emphasized strong support for continued communication and transparency throughout the process.
Board members asked clarifying questions about whether the plan assumes new construction; RSP replied the analysis will use existing district inventory and only recommend new capital projects if enrollment forecasts and space shortfalls require them. RSP repeated that no decisions have been made and the data will drive any proposals.
The Board of Education and administration will provide a prioritized list of criteria back to RSP; RSP told the board it will incorporate that weighting as it develops administrative scenarios for public review.
