Board and administration presented detailed enrollment and capacity data that the rezoning committee has used to examine elementary school boundaries. The district reported a long‑term decline from about 5,200 students in 2006 to lower enrollments in recent years and said the most recent BEDS‑day counts and consultant projections show uneven distribution: Eagle and Glenmont are up and near capacity, while Hammargrove, Slingerlands and Ellesmere are underenrolled.

Administration explained how available classroom counts and section assignments interact with class‑size targets. The consultants had proposed a high range of 20–24 students and the district had historically used a low target of 18–20. After committee discussion, the district recommended a middle target of 18–22 students by grade as a guideline for balancing sections and maximizing classroom use. The presentation showed scenarios using current enrollment and projected enrollment to 2030–31, demonstrating that, with no changes, certain buildings will face section deficits while other buildings show surplus unused classrooms.

The committee emphasized class size and school equity as top priorities when weighing boundary changes. Administrators noted operational constraints—most notably a bus‑driver shortage and state education department requirements that the Board of Education approve any boundary changes—will factor into final recommendations. The administration said consultants are working with the transportation department and that the next steps include a consultant presentation to the board on Nov. 19 and a community forum on Nov. 20; formal recommendations for board consideration were targeted for December or January with potential implementation for 2026–27.

During public comment more than a dozen speakers addressed the board, almost all urging the district to present and model at least one "low disruption" option that would keep currently enrolled students in their existing schools (grandfathering or phased implementation), or to produce models showing the transportation and educational impacts of both higher‑movement and lower‑movement scenarios. Representative public comments included: Aaron Critchlow asking "how should all of our taxes and our resources be spent to give our all of our kids the best education in this overall very amazing district?"; Jason Harper (reading a petition) requesting that the board "ensure the range of options presented to it includes at least 1 model that allows all currently enrolled students to remain in their existing schools"; and a middle‑school student, Gabe, asking the board not to "split up the elementary school friendships for hundreds of kids."

Several parents requested clearer, centralized communication about options and asked that any models be released publicly before final recommendations so families can provide informed feedback. Board members asked that consultants include transportation modeling for grandfathering proposals and stressed that the board must consider legal and operational constraints before finalizing any plan.

No boundary changes were approved at the meeting; the board set a schedule for additional committee work, consultant deliverables, a community forum on Nov. 20 and further board consideration in December and January.