Transcript Slide 1

Teri Timpson, Administrator of Schools, Herriman and Riverton Feeder Systems
Report of Activities
Additional Information
Summary of Patron Feedback
Recommendation

Meetings held with School Community
Councils to discuss procedures:
 September - October 2012: 16 schools

Meetings held with Board of Education to
review proposed options, timeline, and
process:
 August 28, 2012
 September 11, 2012
 October 23, 2012




Letters providing survey and open house
information sent home with every student
(grades K-8) and mailed to every student home.
Letters encouraged patrons to access boundary
information and respond to a survey at
www.middleschoolboundary.com.
Link to survey emailed to all parents through
Skyward.
Links to boundary information website posted on
main District Web page.






Online survey and boundary information website
activated on October 24, 2012.
Response will be made by email and/or phone to every
patron completing the survey.
Calls made to address questions, concerns, and
misunderstandings expressed in comments portion of
survey.
Over 772 survey responses to date.
Responses analyzed and summarized for the Board of
Education in this presentation.
All written responses from patrons will be provided to
the Board, along with a copy of this presentation.

Two open houses held at Herriman High School:
November 13
Total Attendees – 12
November 15
Total Attendees – 14
Total Attendees: 26





Computer labs available for patrons to give
feedback through the survey.
Assistance given in completing surveys.
Review of options using large, printed version
of maps.
One-on-one contact and discussion with
patrons at open houses.
Sharing of viewpoints among patrons.

All enrollment projections are calculated
based on:
 Enrollment history
 The number of students enrolled in area schools




as of October 2012
Historical and projected growth
Current and future development projects
Permit requests
Charter students


Consideration was given to aligning the new
middle school boundary and Ft. Herriman
with the high school boundary.
Complete alignment was not feasible, but
could be remedied with a minor high school
boundary change.



Consideration was given to aligning the new
middle school boundary and feeder
elementary boundaries.
Complete alignment would create severe
imbalance in middle school enrollment.
Area elementary school boundaries will be
changing for the 2014-15 school year.

Costs will remain at approximately the same
level, but routes will be adjusted.

Because there is little infrastructure providing
direct access to the new middle school, there
are few populated areas within walking
distance.

All boundary options allow for permits at all four
middle schools.

Butterfield Canyon and Foothills elementary schools
both feed into Ft. Herriman Middle School.

Bluffdale Elementary feeds into South Hills Middle
School.

All boundary options increase middle school
boundary alignment, but none of the options
completely align middle school and elementary
boundaries.
Patron Responses by Category

Current boundary

Boundary option and enrollment projections

Considerations

Average overall ratings 1 (least favorable) to
5 (most favorable)

Average ratings by neighborhood

Representative comments
Current
Boundaries
Option A:
Permits:
Available at all four
schools
2.76
Growth Potential:
ERMS – Low
FHMS – Moderate
NMS – Moderate
SHMS – Moderate
Ratings by
Overall
Area
Average
Feeder Alignment:
Fort Herriman and the
Rating:
Overall
New
Middle School feed
Average
exclusively
to
Herriman High
3.40
Rating:
Butterfield Canyon and
Foothills
elementary boundaries
align
with middle school
boundaries
2.72
3.17
2.14
3.40
Natural Boundaries:
Follows major
roadways and
Herriman/
Riverton City border
3.41

“I like that Option A leaves room for student
growth at the new middle school.”

“Midas Creek is split up . . . therefore, friends are
split up. Logistically it makes sense because it
follows the Herriman and Riverton city
boundaries.”

“I do not like that two of the four middle schools
will have nearly 200 more students. Other
options are more fair.”

“I think the boundaries are concise and easy to
understand with Option A.”
Current
Boundaries
Option B:
Permits:
Available at all four
schools
2.50
Growth Potential:
ERMS – Low
FHMS – Moderate
NMS – Moderate
SHMS – Moderate
Ratings by
Overall
Area
Average
Feeder Alignment:
Fort Herriman and the
Rating:
Overall
New
Middle School feed
Average
exclusively
to
Herriman High
3.01
Rating:
Butterfield Canyon,
Foothills,
Herriman, and Silver
Crest
elementary boundaries
align
with middle school
boundaries
2.29
2.86
3.86
3.01
Natural Boundaries:
Follows major
roadways and
Herriman/Riverton City
border
2.94

“The new middle school enrollment projection is
not too high and still allows room for growth.”

“This option seems to be more equal among all
four schools.”

“I don’t like how this option divides subdivisions.”

“13400 south should be used as the southern
boundary for this option.”

“I like that populations at all middle schools
remain more even throughout the years.”
Current
Boundaries
Option C:
Permits:
Available at all four
schools
2.44
Growth Potential:
ERMS – Low
FHMS – Moderate
NMS – Moderate
SHMS – Moderate
Ratings by
Area
Overall
Feeder Alignment:
Average
Butterfield
Canyon,
Overall
Foothills,
Rating:
Herriman, Silver Crest
Average
and
Midas Creek
elementary boundaries
mainly align with
middle
school boundaries
Rating:
2.80
4.02
3.06
3.52
2.80
Natural Boundaries:
Follows major
roadways
3.00

“This is definitely the best choice for my child. It
places her and neighborhood students in the same
middle and high school.”

“This option makes the most sense as far as busing
and safe walking routes.”

“This option has too much of an impact on Ft.
Herriman students and many neighborhoods would
cross busy intersections to reach assigned schools.”

“This option is not very balanced. It leaves South
Hills too small and sends too many students to the
new middle school.”
After a review of a number of considerations
including, but not limited to:
 Patron feedback
 Boundary student populations
 Neighborhood configurations
the administration recommends:
Option A - Rationale

Received highest rating from patrons

Closely follows high school boundary

Helps balance boundary populations