Teri Timpson, Administrator of Schools, Herriman and Riverton Feeder Systems

1. Jordan School DistrictBoard of EducationBoundary Recommendation for New Middle School in HerrimanNovember 27, 2012 Teri Timpson, Administrator of Schools, Herriman and Riverton Feeder Systems

2. Report of Activities Additional Information Summary of Patron Feedback Recommendation Overview

3. Report of Activities

4. Advance Meetings with Public • 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

5. Patron Notification • 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.

6. Survey • 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.

7. Open Houses • Two open houses held at Herriman High School: • November 13 • Total Attendees – 12 • November 15 • Total Attendees – 14 Total Attendees: 26

8. Open House Format • 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.

9. Additional Information

10. Enrollment Projections • 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

11. Feeder Alignment – High School 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.

12. Feeder Alignment – Elementary School 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.

13. Transportation Costs 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.

14. Boundary Options – Commonalities 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.

15. Summary of Patron Feedback

16. Patron Responses by Category

17. Presentation of Patron Feedback • Current boundary • Boundary option and enrollment projections • Considerations • Average overall ratings 1 (least favorable) to 5 (most favorable) • Average ratings by neighborhood • Representative comments

18. Current Boundaries

19. Ratings by Area Overall Average Rating: 3.40 Option A: Permits: Available at all four schools Growth Potential: ERMS – Low FHMS – Moderate NMS – Moderate SHMS – Moderate Feeder Alignment: Fort Herriman and the New Middle School feed exclusively to Herriman High Butterfield Canyon and Foothills elementary boundaries align with middle school boundaries Natural Boundaries: Follows major roadways and Herriman/ Riverton City border Overall Average Rating: 3.40 2.76 2.72 3.17 2.14 3.41

20. Option A Comments • “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.”

21. Current Boundaries

22. Option B: Permits: Available at all four schools Growth Potential: ERMS – Low FHMS – Moderate NMS – Moderate SHMS – Moderate Feeder Alignment: Fort Herriman and the New Middle School feed exclusively to Herriman High Butterfield Canyon, Foothills, Herriman, and Silver Crest elementary boundaries align with middle school boundaries Natural Boundaries: Follows major roadways and Herriman/Riverton City border Overall Average Rating: 3.01 Ratings by Area Overall Average Rating: 3.01 2.50 2.29 2.86 3.86 2.94

23. Option B comments • “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.”

24. Current Boundaries

25. Ratings by Area Overall Average Rating: 2.80 Option C: Permits: Available at all four schools Growth Potential: ERMS – Low FHMS – Moderate NMS – Moderate SHMS – Moderate Feeder Alignment: Butterfield Canyon, Foothills, Herriman, Silver Crest and Midas Creek elementary boundaries mainly align with middle school boundaries Natural Boundaries: Follows major roadways Overall Average Rating: 2.80 2.44 4.02 3.06 3.52 3.00

26. Option C Comments • “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.”

27. Option Comparison – Overall Rating

28. Option Comparison – Percentage of Patrons Rating Each Option as 4 or 5

29. Recommendation

30. Recommendation After a review of a number of considerations including, but not limited to: • Patron feedback • Boundary student populations • Neighborhood configurations the administration recommends:

31. Option A

32. Option A - Rationale • Received highest rating from patrons • Closely follows high school boundary • Helps balance boundary populations

33. Questions