Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Closure Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cuyahoga Falls board to decide which elementary school to close at Sept. 24 meeting
Summary
After community meetings about closing and repurposing one elementary building for a new preschool program, the Cuyahoga Falls City School District board agreed to place a closure vote on its Sept. 24 agenda and asked staff to prepare boundary and transportation scenarios.
The Cuyahoga Falls City School District Board of Education agreed Sept. 10 to place a formal action on the Sept. 24 agenda to decide which elementary school — Price or Preston — will be closed and repurposed for the district's new preschool.
Board members said the decision must balance current and projected enrollment, transportation safety and ride times, building logistics for converting an elementary site into a preschool and the alternate high school, parking and community impact. Several board members said they feel they already have the information they need to vote and want the decision made on Sept. 24 so staff can begin boundary planning.
The board emphasized the practical factors driving the choice: projected enrollment trends, manageable class sizes, bus routes and how railroad crossings and major roads would affect student travel times. Board member comments repeatedly framed the choice as difficult because school buildings are “anchors in our communities” and will have social as well as operational consequences for neighborhoods.
Superintendent Dr. Scott told the board that if the board selects a building at its next meeting, the transportation supervisor will prepare multiple boundary and routing scenarios using software to model ride times, with attention to safety around railroads and major thoroughfares. The superintendent said staff would need “probably a couple to a few weeks” to develop routing options and that the board should supply any priorities (for example, preserving neighborhood cohesion or limiting reassignment distances) to guide those scenarios.
Board members discussed redistricting practices the community has reacted to, noting that a preliminary “rough draft” boundary map that circulated earlier prompted pushback because some draft boundaries did not take students from closed schools into account. One board member urged that when staff prepare new maps they “keep building whole as much as possible,” reflecting community concern that some redistricting proposals would move students without absorbing children from the closed building.
The superintendent also outlined transportation policy the district will use while redrawing boundaries: a one‑mile guideline for elementary busing will be an indicator for bus eligibility, though the superintendent said there will be exceptions. She noted that if students are reassigned to a school outside the one‑mile threshold the district would provide busing; she cautioned, however, that the specifics of interdistrict exceptions and requests by parents could be complicated and may be managed on a case‑by‑case basis.
The board instructed staff to list the closure as an action item on the Sept. 24 agenda in a format that names a single building (for example, "Close [blank] Elementary School") so that a board member can make a motion to identify which school would close and trigger the formal vote and subsequent boundary work.
The discussion closed with several board members saying they did not need additional data to decide, and expressing an interest in moving promptly so community engagement on the updated boundary proposals can begin.
Looking ahead, the board scheduled the closure vote for Sept. 24 so transportation, redistricting and stakeholder outreach can proceed once a building is selected.
