HAMILTON SOUTHEASTERN SCHOOL DISTRICT...Hamilton Southeastern Schools - Focus Group Results 2 INTRODUCTION On September 27, 2018, five focus group meetings were held to solicit feedback

1 Hamilton Southeastern Schools - Focus Group Results 1

HAMILTON SOUTHEASTERN

SCHOOL DISTRICT

FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS REPORT

OCTOBER, 2018


INTRODUCTION

On September 27, 2018, five focus group meetings were held to solicit feedback about preliminary options for the K-8 redistricting

process. Prior to this meeting, 18 boundary options had been created by parents during a set of cluster committee meetings. These 18

options were then narrowed down to 4, based on the scenario’s ability to meet the board criteria.

Participants were asked to discuss the benefits and challenges of each option as small groups, then they participated in a poll which

compared each option to the School Board criteria. There were a total of 65 community members participated in these meetings,

members included principals, teachers, city officials, students, and the superintendent’s advisory council.

Cooperative Strategies would like to thank the students, staff, Board of Education, Cluster Committee, and the community of the

Hamilton Southeastern Schools for their commitment and dedication to the planning process.

COMBINED RESULTS


Scenario A


Scenario A Combined group responses for Scenario A

4%

39%

52%

4%

Closest School Assignment

Very Well Well OK Not Well at All

66%

15%

18%

1%

Feeder Pattern Design


13%

29%

43%

15%

Maintain Neighborhoods & Subdivisions


13%

27%

36%

24%

Capacity for Growth Potential



Scenario B


Scenario B Combined group responses for Scenario B

39%

12%18%

31%



7%

32%

36%

25%



4%

22%

45%

29%



1%

28%

41%

30%




Scenario C


Scenario C Combined group responses for Scenario C

11%

20%

43%

26%



62%25%

10%4%



22%

29%39%

9%



4%

16%

36%

44%




Scenario D


Scenario D Combined group responses for Scenario D

12%

44%32%

12%



51%36%

12%

1%



16%

38%37%

9%



10%

38%31%

21%




Overall Support Comparison

15%

38%

37%

10%

Overall Support - Scenario A

Very Strong Support Strong Support Do Not Support Strongly Do Not Support

7%

28%

37%

29%

Overall Support - Scenario B


16%

22%

35%

27%

Overall Support - Scenario C


8%

36%

38%

18%

Overall Support - Scenario D



Scenario Ranking

The table below shows the combined results of the four groups asked to rank the four scenarios (1 being first choice and 4 being last

choice). Scenario A had the highest overall ranking with a 1.5 average, and Scenario B had the lowest overall ranking with a 3.0

average.

Please rank the 4 scenarios (Top being

your first choice and bottom being your

last choice):

Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5Total

ScoreAverage

Scenario A 2 1 2 1 6 1.5

Scenario B 2 4 2 4 12 3.0

Scenario C 4 3 1 2 10 2.5

Scenario D 1 2 4 2 9 2.3


High School Choice

21%

33%

8%

38%

How Should the High School Choice Program be Handled?

It should be left alone Make minor modifications It needs completely revamped Eliminate choice and redraw high school boundaries

RESULTS BY GROUP


Scenario A

How well does Scenario A assign students to schools closest to their homes?

Group 2 - Superintendent Advisory Committee Group 1 - Principals

Group 4 - Students Group 3 - Teachers

Group 5 - Business Officials

How well does Scenario A assign students to schools

closest to their homes?Count Percent

Very Well 0 0%

Well 6 67%

OK 3 33%

Not Well at All 0 0%



Very Well 0 0%

Well 7 58%

OK 5 42%




Very Well 2 18%

Well 5 45%

OK 4 36%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 5 23%

OK 14 64%




Very Well 1 7%

Well 4 27%

OK 10 67%



Scenario A

How well does Scenario A attempt to design a feeder pattern?




How well does Scenario A attempt to design a feeder

pattern?Count Percent

Very Well 8 89%

Well 1 11%

OK 0 0%




Very Well 7 58%

Well 3 25%

OK 2 17%




Very Well 5 45%

Well 0 0%

OK 6 55%




Very Well 19 83%

Well 3 13%

OK 1 4%




Very Well 9 50%

Well 4 22%

OK 4 22%



Scenario A

How well does Scenario A maintain neighborhoods and subdivisions?




How well does Scenario A maintain neighborhoods and

subdivisions?Count Percent

Very Well 1 10%

Well 5 50%

OK 2 20%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 1 8%

OK 8 67%




Very Well 1 9%

Well 3 27%

OK 7 64%




Very Well 2 8%

Well 9 38%

OK 9 38%




Very Well 5 33%

Well 3 20%

OK 5 33%



Scenario A

How well does Scenario A provide capacity at schools with the greatest potential for growth?




How well does Scenario A provide capacity at schools

with the greatest potential for growth?Count Percent

Very Well 3 33%

Well 5 56%

OK 1 11%




Very Well 4 33%

Well 2 17%

OK 1 8%




Very Well 1 9%

Well 3 27%

OK 3 27%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 4 17%

OK 13 54%




Very Well 2 11%

Well 6 32%

OK 9 47%



Scenario A

What is your overall level of support for Scenario A?




What is your overall level of support for Scenario A? Count Percent

Very Strong Support 5 63%

Strong Support 1 13%

Do Not Support 2 25%

Strongly Do Not Support 0 0%






















Scenario A

Please provide any additional feedback you have about Scenario A

Group 1 - Principals

Splitting neighborhood deer path into multiple schools-concerning since they were split last district

Some concern over concentration of apartments for CRE

Scenario A is pretty similar to our current boundary and enrollment.

No split schools, FJH would be really small in terms of capacity, better distribution of SES.

NA

#'s too low for HIJH given unique 5-8 configuration; 7/8 needs to be 550-600 for athletes or we will be in same scenario as two years ago with stu-

dents having to go to FCJH.

Scenario A...when looking at capacity compared to the other plans seems to have capacity balanced the best...but, many factors looking at

growth...large circle by FES. It also moves the smallest amount of students overall...community support...easier sell with less impacted or easier

sell with more being impacted...board expectations, if any, with capacity scenarios?

Strong feeder, allows adequate room for growth across almost all schools, F/R decently balanced.


Scenario A


Cumberland road going to riverside intermediate is too far for those families

Choppy

I think A places undue burden on CRES - free/ reduced too high and RSI is too far.

There seem to be other scenarios that would work better with better percentages.

more even utilization

Difficult to pick support when don't see other options

Too much time on buses for students east of 37 riding to Riverside.

Difficult to determine support based on not looking closely at other options.

Looks choppy, utilization seems high across the board, feeder system looks good

Hard to judge support since I've not seen any other plans yet.

I don't like A because of the Deer Path area and FCI and FCJH are too near capacity. Too many kids get moved in A

I like that this is 100% feeder but I don't like how the lines are divided and projected growth makes it seem like we will be redistricting again

soon.

Concern on whether feeder continues to high school.

Good plan with feeder system, however not much room for several elementaries and FCJH/INT to grow based on projected area growth.

Free and reduced lunch is off .

Scenario A seems like the most logical and balanced of the four choices.

Areas are not clumped together and split up

Group 2 - Superintendent Advisory Committee


Scenario A


Choppy, good utilization of Elementary schools, feeder system

HIJH is too full. GES is too full. It is 100% feeder to INT/JH

Future growth could hurt balancing on Southwest schools.

I think this plan has merit it some ways that it is a feeder system but I think the downfall is the over utilization of Fishers Elementary given that

there is no plan for what will happen with this school in the future. The Int/JH balance is good.

Scenario A places unfair burdens on CRES families. The school ends up becoming over capacity with the highest percentage of free and reduced

lunch. On top of that, the school families are being asked to move to a new intermediate school farther away (and difficult to reach).

I don't like the district lines for Durban Elem. or Sand Creek Elem. they each have portions of their districts that are contiguous to the rest of the

boundary lines.

GES, TCE, and HIJH are too full - they do not leave enough room for all the growth happening in those areas.

Concerned with moving kids for from geographically close elementary schools



Scenario A


Free and reduced lunch percents need to be equaled.

Need to equalize free and reduced lunch at JH level

Geist needs a lower percent to allow growth

I need more time to look at scenario A. Lots of info to digest at once. Pls consider equalizing free and reduced lunch population across the

schools.

Would be helpful to be able to make a comparison.no

East schools need to allow for more growth many are still high in this plan.

We need to look at F/R lunch - equity needs to be thoughtfully considered.

Quite a few students are having to move schools.

I like that scenario A allows for growth within South eastern Elementary. I like that it provides 100% feeder school. I fear the community will

have back lash with a quarter of the students being moved. I think the better balance of free and reduced lunch is a positive side of this scenario,

as well!

Why are we not looking at equalizing free and reduced lunch at the intermediates and junior highs. Also, put elementaries with less growth po-

tential at a high utilization.

FCE and BSE should have 100% capacity and GES and TCE are too full.

I think it's important to keep the feeder system all the way through HS. Scenario A has 100% feeding into int/jh which is great. Kids make im-

portant connections during these years and keeping them with the peers they've spent years cultivating relationships with should be the highest

priority.

Some concern with the 2 "islands" on the SES TCE HPE boundaries. Seen like lots of new build in SES. Is 82% enough buffer? What will happen

Group 3 - Teachers


Scenario A


with HS feeder? Looks good on paper....

Scenario A I feel is well balanced. I am concerned about moving GE to FCI. Last time that caused a huge issue. Will the district be prepared to

fight that battle? I think it's a better scenario, but want to make sure that one small subgroup does not control the best interests of all our stu-

dents. I am slightly concerned about the utilization of a few of our elementaries by the main town of fishers. Their utilization is high and they are

tearing things down and building new homes in that area. When we have to build another new elementary soon how will we divide? Need to

consider since our capacities are already so high.

Group 3 - Teachers


Scenario A


There is no room for growth and in the near future we will have to do this again.

People move to our city frequent, which means there will be a constant increase on students. This scenario would be acceptable for "now" however it would not

be beneficial towards a couple years from now.

A lot of students are being moved around. It's not a really large percent, but it could be better if it was smaller

I dislike how many kids will have to change schools. I also dislike the small pocket of Durbin and Sand Creek. I think it's unreasonable. However, I do support

shrinking the size of Durbin due to the distance that kids have to go every day to get to school.

I fell this might have potential but their is some people still have to travel far to get to school because it is not close to them and their are weird cut offs that

make some schools smaller and some larger.

I like the change in utilization that will come with Scenario A, but I don't like how neighborhoods and other areas are split up. For example, the FCJH zones are

split by a major distance, which could greatly affect the kids and their mentality when going to school (assuming they lose their friends to other schools). This is

also shown through a few elementary schools.

Scenario A seems like a safe bet overall just because of the capacity fulfillment in most of the schools (with overcapacity being a predominant issue in the cur-

rent mapping). However, analyzing the number of moving students and some of the odd geographical divisions, I wouldn't say that it would be my number

one choice holistically.

don't split up neighborhoods

I believe Scenario A is the best option even though there are a few weird cuts for some students to make new friends at new schools, but other than that I think

the capacity levels are the best out of every option. I don't think the school with a little over-utilized will be a problem

Areas such as Dusty, Deer View, Dry Creek and Idle wood are separated from the rest of the kids that would go to the same schools and this would not be good

for the kids. Having no friends from school who live near by could isolate them.

Although 6 elementary schools are still overused, it isn't as drastic as 141%, for example. The cutoff for some elementary schools, such as the island of Durbin

ES and Sand Creek ES kids in the Southeastern ES lines, are weird. But it is the best option from a feeder and students moved standpoint.

Group 4 - Students


Scenario A



Good overall

Seems like a good proposal

N/A

It may have been helpful to have this info ahead of time.

Looking at the numbers, it seems the most balanced

No additional feedback

None

Capacity numbers are more balanced

Like the 100 percent feeder. The closest is not the most important but advantageous.


Scenario B

How well does Scenario B assign students to schools closest to their homes?




How well does Scenario B assign students to schools


Very Well 8 89%

Well 1 11%

OK 0 0%




Very Well 3 25%

Well 1 8%

OK 5 42%




Very Well 2 20%

Well 2 20%

OK 4 40%




Very Well 11 44%

Well 4 16%

OK 2 8%




Very Well 5 28%

Well 1 6%

OK 2 11%



Scenario B

How well does Scenario B attempt to design a feeder pattern?




How well does Scenario B attempt to design a feeder


Very Well 0 0%

Well 1 11%

OK 4 44%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 8 67%

OK 3 25%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 3 27%

OK 6 55%




Very Well 5 19%

Well 7 27%

OK 9 35%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 5 29%

OK 5 29%



Scenario B

How well does Scenario B maintain neighborhoods and subdivisions?




How well does Scenario B maintain neighborhoods and


Very Well 1 13%

Well 0 0%

OK 0 0%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 4 33%

OK 8 67%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 6 55%

OK 2 18%




Very Well 1 4%

Well 3 12%

OK 14 56%




Very Well 1 8%

Well 2 15%

OK 7 54%



Scenario B

How well does Scenario B provide capacity at schools with the greatest potential for growth?



How well does Scenario B provide capacity at schools


Very Well 0 0%

Well 5 50%

OK 5 50%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 5 42%

OK 3 25%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 4 36%

OK 5 45%




Very Well 1 4%

Well 6 24%

OK 10 40%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 1 6%

OK 7 44%




Scenario B

What is your overall level of support for Scenario B?



What is your overall level of support for Scenario B? Count Percent












Strong Support 0 0%















Scenario B

Please provide any additional feedback you have about Scenario B


Very choppy map

Too much room

69% capacity at SES is simply too low

Actually...it is scenario B that moves the least amount of students...not A as I implied in my open response back in A.

There is a split elementary, odd neighborhood configuration, too many under utilized schools.

Capacity at RSI/RJH is low

Moves the least amount of children.

Very choppy map. Split elementary. Positive: smallest student movement

This option appears to be pretty disjointed regarding neighborhood schools and feeder systems. There are more neighborhoods split.

Capacity is increased more in this scenario compared to A in most schools.

This one is tough on HPE, but does impact the least amount of children. The capacity at DES and SES leaves some space for future growth

which is anticipated.

Moves least amount still divides deer path into multiple schools

too much room at riverside, little movement of kids, hpe split,

Not good


Scenario B



Moving less students, attending geographically closest school,

Too many neighborhood splits.

I feel strongly about keeping elementary kids at the geographically closest school. This option also moves the least amount of students

Like that this plan sends HPE to RSI/JH.

Would be really helpful to have overlay map of streets and subdivisions

Moves less students, but with overcapacity in large projected growth areas. Also does not maintain feeder, but decent margin for split at HPE.

The patchwork division of school lines will cause confusion.

HIJH is too high in capacity & Riverside & Durbin are too low. From a busing standpoint TCE & Harrison pkwy have way too far of a distance.

Harrison Parkway has big bussing issues. Southeastern has weird boundaries with TC. I like how they have done the rest though.

Too many islands - neighborhoods cut off by other neighborhoods- it's not practical

Having a reference to roads/subdivisions would be helpful.

This map splits more neighborhoods then needed. It also puts a lot of schools over capacity with no wiggle room. I do like that it moves less stu-

dents. But, the way it's split and how kids will be moved makes no sense at all.

Too many islands. Riverside not full enough and will not be growing

Strange splits and lines so would be helpful to see street and neighborhood lines on the map to see just how much it is splitting.

I think this is a strong plan that moves the least amount of students and keeps the free and reduced population more balanced. I think the over

utilization of more elementary schools is however a drawback.

Fewest number of students need to move schools. High percentages go to closest schools.


Scenario B



I like the division of free and reduced lunches amongst the schools. The utilization rate also seems pretty balanced.

Not as balanced utilization of schools. Moves fewer students which could make problems down the road.

I like this option. It seems to solve some issues of growth. I believe sountheastern elem will have more growth so i don't mind leaving that num-

ber low. I really like the int/junior high split in this scenario. I would like to have a map to see roads while doing this

Too much over utilizing and too many neighborhoods being isolated from surrounding neighborhoods. Split at HPE is not good.

Lots of notes on our sheet. Riverside is terribly underutilized. Too many islands in the boundaries. FJH becomes overburdened.

I feel strongly that plan B takes into account the new growth on the east side. Job well done!! It also has the least amount of students being shifted

during a redistricting process. I like that it smooths out the free and reduced % across the district. Best plan yet!

Scenario B seems well balanced and would potentially distribute the kids close to their home schools.

HPES too full with high free and reduced. It doesn't look good distance wise either. Durbin is too low. Riverside is too low. TCES and southeast-

ern too choppy.

I don't care for the HPE split. The TCE and SES boundaries are very choppy if you look at the map. DES is too low for enrollment numbers.

GES, TCE, and HIJH are too full! Riverside Int and JH are too low - there's very little growth going on in that area.

Do not like neighborhood splits, more utilization. Moving less students, attending geographically closest school


Scenario B


Group 3 - Teachers

While it is an amazing feat to give lower capacity percentages to Durbin and SE it also lowers capacity for Riverside; which is not smart.

Very concern with under-utilization of Riverside.

A lot of movement of Hoosier Road kids. They just had to switch schools now moving back.

Kids will not be attending schools closest to their house. East schools are high Geist and Thorpe and don't leave room

Do not like the geographic split for TCE and SES . Do not like split of HPE to different JH

Concerned with Riverside numbers being low and other int/jh being at capacity. Lots of "islands" HPE is covering a large area.

The isands everywhere don't make sense. And Thorpe Creek has an odd boundary. This does not leave room for growth overall and I can see the

need to redistricting again soon.

Do not like the boundaries broken up for schools, seems like it's the same pocket of kids getting moved again.

Geist is at 105 percent capacity.

I do not support this plan for a few very critical reasons. This leaves riverside at 77% but there is not a high growth in that area. This also puts

HIJH AT 100% and doesn't allow room for growth. I do not like the way Thorpe creek will split into three separate groups. This plan puts 6

schools over capacity.

GES and TCE are at least 100% in this plan and I believe these areas will be growing (so will soon be over capacity). Also, the division of students

between TCE and SES seems very awkward. SES goes right up through the middle of TCE.

This scenario leaves Riverside with 77% capacity in an area where there is little growth and little new development. It creates small islands of

neighborhoods and splits Thorpe Creek into 3 sections...how will kids interact with each other out of school?

Fishers Junior High is at 101% utilization and has 19% free and reduced population.

This gives Geist HIJH, but at what cost for dividing Thorpe and SE to accommodate? The boundaries for intermediates do not make sense.


Scenario B


Group 4 - Students

The main concern I have is transportation. Will students who live far have the sufficient transportation to and from their school? If they're too far,

what happens if they miss the bus?

The new elementary school (southeastern) was built for this purpose, why not use this to our advantage?

Put more kids into Southeastern Elementary school.

Harrison PW is split really awkwardly, if it can be fixed, that would make this scenario a lot more agreeable

I like that there are less students being moved. I dislike all of the patchwork on the map. Southeastern should be used more than 69%.

Southeastern ES can be better utilized

I personally don't like how Harrison el parkway curves and takes over the outskirts of fishers but it is really similar to our current map.

Overall Scenario B is very similar to Scenario A. The only thing that I don't like is the Harrison Parkway split. It looks as if the district line is the

outskirts of the other schools.

I like how the majority of students are kept close to home and stay in the same area as they were before. I do not like the awkward split between

New Britton and Harrison Parkway. I feel that too many students would be moved out of that area. The same goes with how Thorpe Creek and

Southeastern are split.

The reason scenario B is considerable is because it is quite similar to our current model. This helps decrease the number of students moved to

different schools. However, the biggest downfall to the model is the feeding divide of Harrison Parkway.

I think that Scenario B is the way to go. It maintains many of the geographic characteristics of the current system and moves the least amount of

students, which will probably make it easy for parents and students to support, but the incorporation of the new Southeastern elementary solves

the over-utilization issues the district is currently facing. The utilization of the new Southeastern elementary is a bit underwhelming, but the

boundaries cover an area that is likely to continue to develop and increase the new school's capacity. There is only one feeder issue that is an un-

fortunate consequence that might be able to be fixed, but is negligible overall.


Scenario B



Not supportive

N/A

Meh

Boundary map is too mixed up

Splitting the kids at the elementary going to junior high is tough on the kids.

So important to keep kids together with their friends at JH critical time.

Not in favor. Although it is least disruptive to movement, it does not give the best scenario.

None

Moves fewer. Good geo proximity to homes. HPE seems very expansive.

None

Thorpe Creek ES and SE ES seem very fractured.


Scenario C

How well does Scenario C assign students to schools closest to their homes?




How well does Scenario C assign students to schools


Very Well 0 0%

Well 0 0%

OK 6 67%




Very Well 4 33%

Well 3 25%

OK 1 8%




Very Well 1 10%

Well 1 10%

OK 7 70%




Very Well 1 4%

Well 5 21%

OK 8 33%




Very Well 2 11%

Well 6 32%

OK 10 53%



Scenario C

How well does Scenario C attempt to design a feeder pattern?




How well does Scenario C attempt to design a feeder


Very Well 5 56%

Well 3 33%

OK 1 11%




Very Well 10 83%

Well 2 17%

OK 0 0%




Very Well 3 30%

Well 4 40%

OK 3 30%




Very Well 16 64%

Well 3 12%

OK 3 12%




Very Well 11 65%

Well 6 35%

OK 0 0%



Scenario C

How well does Scenario C maintain neighborhoods and subdivisions?




How well does Scenario C maintain neighborhoods and


Very Well 0 0%

Well 3 33%

OK 6 67%




Very Well 10 83%

Well 2 17%

OK 0 0%




Very Well 1 10%

Well 4 40%

OK 5 50%




Very Well 1 4%

Well 8 31%

OK 12 46%




Very Well 5 26%

Well 5 26%

OK 7 37%



Scenario C

How well does Scenario C provide capacity at schools with the greatest potential for growth?



How well does Scenario C provide capacity at schools


Very Well 0 0%

Well 2 18%

OK 7 64%




Very Well 1 8%

Well 6 50%

OK 0 0%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 0 0%

OK 7 70%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 3 12%

OK 8 32%




Very Well 2 12%

Well 1 6%

OK 5 29%




Scenario C

What is your overall level of support for Scenario C?



What is your overall level of support for Scenario C? Count Percent








Do Not Support 0 0%



















Scenario C

Please provide any additional feedback you have about Scenario C


Moves 2nd most children

High SES at 5 schools

Lots of schools with f/r %

Splits Brooks School neighborhoods

Too many schools with a high SES, not much room to grow the east side,

Bad SES numbers.

Ses is not balanced but neighborhoods are not split

Higher concentrations of F/R numbers...concern about support for so many schools

Neighborhoods are maintained well. SES is more appropriately filled.

LRE's enrollment is high and SEVERAL schools have a high F/R lunch percentage

Is there enough capacity at Southeastern ES with the construction happening on the east side of the district? Free and reduced % in this scenar-

io...more out of balance?

Clean boundaries

deer path throughout all is split


Scenario C


Lantern Road is over crowded.

Lantern road is overloaded....

Not a fan.

I do not like this one at all. Too many issues and too many students moving.

Lantern road over capacity

Map looks better and good feeder system.

This looks to be the cleanest map and I love the 100% feeder. I also like that most schools have room for growth. This seems to be a well thought

out map.

Nope! Too many students move, way over capacity, too high free/reduced lunch percentages.

Puts undo stress on schools by overloading them with capacity and free and reduced lunch families.

Really like option, biggest concern is the 111% at Lantern.

Lines look cleaner than the others.

Map looks better with less splits. 100% feeder. Lantern is too high and HIJH is high.

Hoosier road to riverside is too far. Free and reduced lunch too high at certain schools

Nope, just no. This scenario is the least favorable of the scenarios the challenges way outweigh the benefits.

HPE goes up a bit on free/reduced students

Unrealistic for you to send HRE to Riverside then back to HSE High. Families with multiple children in different schools could never transport

for after school activities.



Scenario C


HIJH is high at 99%. The free/reduced #s are high for 4 elementary schools. Intermediate and junior high maps look good. LRE capacity is high.

Free and reduced is elevated for lots of schools.

The free and reduced lunches are too high st numerous schools. It is not well divided at all. The utilization rates are also not good. One school

is at 111% and one at 106%.

Intermediate schools do not have room for growth in schools that need it most.

This is the least appealing option. Too much over utilizing, HRE should not have to go to RSI/RJH and then back to HSE for high school. The free

and reduced lunch are too high for too many schools.

BSE district too split and too far

Moving too many students, over utilization, Brook School chopped up, Elementary attendance to closest school too low at 50.6%. Good INT/JH

seemed very well balanced and geographically close

It moves neighborhoods too far west at the 5-8 level. With the upcoming construction on 37 and thru downtown Fishers this is unbelievably poor

planning. And then you want to throw us all as back east as you can for HS. INSANE.

This one had 3 schools with a LARGE % of free and reduced...not evenly distributed through the district. Also, don't like new school at 87%.

Lantern road is way off on utilization. HIJH is at 99%...this will be over in a few years. I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PLAN!!!

Unbalanced utilization And BSE broken up weird

100% Feeders, Int/Jh seemed very well balanced and geographically close. Moving too many students, over utilization, Elementary not attend-

ing closest school

Very unbalanced utilization and sending too many ES kids to geographically far schools

Nope! Too many students move, way over capacity, too high free/reduced lunch percentages.



Scenario C


Free reduced lunch are way out of balance

Brooks Schools population completely changes from what it is used to. High free and reduced lunch percent there.

BSE is the biggest loser in this one. Their free/reduced lunch % doubles from current status and their area is split.

This option leaves for the least amount of growth for the new elementary school.

Concern with 4 schools at 20 or more % free/reduced. Also with HIJH and Durbin near capacity. Puts the most kids in SES so far.

DE at 106% capacity. Concerning with future subdivision growth. More of a have/have not division- concerned about equity. Feeders to FCI are

all over the district with DE and GE (one side of district to other). Concerned about capacity at FCI and HIJH when SCI would be much lower

and probably has less growth. It double Geist free and reduced which is good but the percentage is still low.

This scenario puts multiple elementaries above 20% free and reduced as well as those buildings being above utilization. Fishers Junior High is at

20% free and reduced, but at least it is only at 85% utilization.

I find this scenario to have some issues with the free and reduced lunch numbers. It creates a pretty large divide of have's and have-nots. This

also does not leave room for growth in the schools that are projected for growth. For example, Durbin is overutilized and leaves no room for

growth.

Not liking the F/R numbers. Brook School seems to be changing the most and Geist seems

HIJH will be at 99% capacity in this scenario when Southastern Elem will only be at 85% capacity. Where will those elem students go when the

expected (and planned for) growth happens. Also, SCI will only be at 85% capacity while FCI will be at 99% capacity.

BSE has a weird split

not at table

Group 3 - Teachers


Scenario C


This is the best choice to pick from and is a good set up.

A lot more students move but it is a lot more convenient because of the cleaner cuts

We need more schools to fix the growth percentage, that would be the only factor to make this scenario the best out of four.

It is the best option so far but it is a temporary solution. At the rate that Fishers is growing, it will be next to impossible to continue with this plan

after a few years

I really like how Scenario C has cleaner, more decrete, lines. Most of the kids are also all bunched together in the same group/school.

I strongly support this Scenario because of the design. I feel like this keeps the majority of students that went to the same schools together

through the process, which can greatly help with a school's environment.

I strongly like this scenario. I think that it does a great job of splitting up the students as well as recognizing where neighborhoods are.

We need more schools to fix population sizes. This is a good map for now, but five years in the future it won't work.

Some schools are over crowded, but the schools that have room is where there is going to be growth except for Lantern Road which would be

overcrowded and have growth.

Scenario C works best for now. However, it doesn't offer a lot room for growth so in a few years, this issue may come up again.

Scenario C has the cleanest cuts of schools. The only weird one is Brooks School ES. It also utilizes the new ES the most to alleviate other schools

I think Scenario C is another map with a lot of benefits. The divisions are cleaner and seem organized, although the percentage of (elementary)

kids going to their closest school is not ideal. I think that the Intermediate/JH split for Fall Creek Int./JH is a bit strange, but utilization is fairly

stable across the board (especially with the new school getting 87%). This map has good and bad in it, and I think it could be streamlined more in

future community meetings.

Group 4 - Students


Scenario C


None

Good overall. Better boundary map than A.

None

Concerned about the level of utilization at Southeastern Elementary.

Some schools too populated as growth continues.

Not the best



Scenario D

How well does Scenario D assign students to schools closest to their homes?




How well does Scenario D assign students to schools


Very Well 1 11%

Well 2 22%

OK 2 22%




Very Well 2 17%

Well 3 25%

OK 6 50%




Very Well 1 8%

Well 9 75%

OK 2 17%




Very Well 4 16%

Well 12 48%

OK 9 36%




Very Well 1 6%

Well 7 41%

OK 5 29%



Scenario D

How well does Scenario D attempt to design a feeder pattern?




How well does Scenario D attempt to design a feeder


Very Well 2 22%

Well 6 67%

OK 1 11%




Very Well 8 67%

Well 4 33%

OK 0 0%




Very Well 4 36%

Well 2 18%

OK 5 45%




Very Well 16 64%

Well 6 24%

OK 3 12%




Very Well 7 44%

Well 8 50%

OK 0 0%



Scenario D

How well does Scenario D maintain neighborhoods and subdivisions?




How well does Scenario D maintain neighborhoods and


Very Well 2 22%

Well 5 56%

OK 2 22%




Very Well 4 33%

Well 4 33%

OK 3 25%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 6 55%

OK 5 45%




Very Well 2 8%

Well 10 40%

OK 10 40%




Very Well 4 21%

Well 4 21%

OK 8 42%



Scenario D

How well does Scenario D provide capacity at schools with the greatest potential for growth?



How well does Scenario D provide capacity at schools


Very Well 1 9%

Well 3 27%

OK 6 55%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 7 58%

OK 4 33%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 7 64%

OK 4 36%




Very Well 7 27%

Well 8 31%

OK 2 8%




Very Well 0 0%

Well 5 28%

OK 8 44%




Scenario D

What is your overall level of support for Scenario D?



What is your overall level of support for Scenario D? Count Percent



























Scenario D

Please provide any additional feedback you have about Scenario D


Disproportionate SES at SCE

Numbers do need seem to suit many schools.

My primary concern with this scenario is the number of students who have to change to a new school. There are nearly 2000 more students im-

pacted by this model vs. the lowest impact model presented. That to me is significant. It also does not leave room for growth at Durbin.

SES still disproportionate at some schools.

Many elementary schools are over capacity with this option.

SCI/FJH is too small. The configuration of that area is wacky. Elementary schools look more compact.

Ok, but lots of students moving

I like the capacity for the east side...trying not to focus solely on that...but also be realistic.

Like that new elementary absorbs up to 156.

Good feeder


Scenario D


Like 100% feeder

Neighborhoods serm

Great room for growth out east.

Strong free and reduced lunch at certain schools.

Biggest concern is growth ob west side not accounted for

Boundaries clearly defined and in good "clumps".

I do not like this scenario at all. Too many students are moving! Free and reduced numbers at some schools are too high.

Fishers JH is too low capacity, but everything else appears to look great. More kids moving on this sceberio, but we are redistricting.

I do not like this scenario either there are far more challenges to this plan than benefits. This moves far too many students.

This one doesn't take growth into consideration and how the jr highs are split. But, growth on this one leaves no room

Best map break out

Geographical closest to ES school

Allows good growth on the east of the city. Good feeder for Intermediate and JH.

FJH only at 82% capacity yet students east of 37 and close to FJH need to ride buses all the way to Riverside.

Map looks good. Less splits. 100% Feeder. Numbers make more sense with growth.

Overcapacity, High Free/reduced lunch percentage for 5 schools. Moves WAY too many students.

Biggest concern is the potential for growth for NBE and LRE. Also growth in Durbin.

Great for bussing.



Scenario D


Neighborhoods seem less choppy.

There are problems with the free and reduced lunch. Also, this moves the most students without actually achieving good utilization rates.

Good feeder system

Like the LRE district.

Intermediate and JH boundaries are consistent with current

Moving most students, don't like intermediate and JH division. Elementary division not as choppy, good feeder system, consistent with what is

now boundary with intermediate and JH

FJH lines are a bit wonky.

Seems logical. Heavy utilization in schools that will most likely wane.

Good utilization.

The map looks good - good clusters. A little room was left at GES, SES, and HIJH for growth. The schools that are over capacity are pretty stable

in their growth. I don't like that Geist Overlook splits at the Int/JH level

It seems to provide the most balance of the 4 scenarios. The free and reduced will never be fair but if current resources are allowed at CRES and

SCE that could offset the high F/r.

Elementary schools not as choppy, good feeder, int/jh similar to current. Moved too many students

3 schools have a very high free and reduced lunch...don't like the new schools utilization %. Don't think this plan does a good job of meeting the

board goals.

I'd like to see how this one fits into the HS lines before giving it an endorsement.



Scenario D


Dont

A lot of student movement

like

This plan allows for the most growth east.

HIJ too high.

Either the exception of Cumberland going to riverside, this seems like a good plan.

TCE is still over capacity compared to FCE, GES and BSE being at 93%

No islands, Room for growth at SES, 4 schoo×l at/near 20%

Cumberland Road going to Riverside seems far away.

Don't like the amount of kids moving.

Free/reduced

This scenario puts several schools over utilization. I like the 100% feeder aspect. Also, almost 1/3 of the students will be moved Overall, it's a

pretty decent proposal.

No islands. Schools that are overutilized ar supposedly in the areas with less growth. DE is at high capacity and is a little concerning. Free re-

duced is not balanced at Intermediate and junior high levels. Harrison parkway becomes over capacity and has large amount of free and reduced

lunch. Concerning.

Better distribution of elem population, but INT/JH numbers are off. SCI goes to 82% while others are in mid - hi 90s

Group 3 - Teachers


Scenario D


This scenario doesn't offer a lot of growth. More than C, but still not a lot

There is no room for growth in this scenario.

Spread a few of the neighborhoods in the overpopulated schools to others schools that are nowhere near overpopulated.

I think that there is practically no room for growth. However, it does do a good job of keeping kids homes close to school

I don't like the way D moves so many students and doesn't utilize Southeastern Elementary to the best capacity. Also, FCJH is split by a long dis-

tance that probably won't suit many students well.

The schools where there is going to be the most growth are the schools that are overcrowded, that's not good.

This is good but scenario C is better

There's too large amount of students that are being moved for this scenario to be okay

I think Scenario D is the worst option. There are way to many kids moving schools and it doesn't benefit the new school at its best.

I don't like the splits they map on the map and they make some schools smaller and making less students go to that school and the schools with

higher number of students get more students add on to that.

As a table we generally don't support Scenario D. The utilization and 100% feeders are good, but I think that the divisions are strange at several

spots. Durbin could incorporate more area to round out it's utilization, and Geist could probably take over some of Fall Creek's. It doesn't seem

like the most refined plan overall.

This scenario moves the most kids, and the junior high split is strange, especially with Fall creek. It has 100% feeders, but that's the only upside.

Group 4 - Students


Scenario D


Moves too many kids

Moves too many students

N/A

None

Moves most students

D is probably least favorite as it moves too many students.

I think that D has the best school area map based on schools and neighborhoods but it does move the most kids around. It's the second highest

for elementary kids close to home.

Highest move percentage. Seems good for neighborhood continuity.

None



4 Scenario Ranking

Please rank the 4 scenarios (Top being your first choice and bottom being your last choice):




N/A

Please rank the 4 scenarios (Top being your first choice

and bottom being your last choice):Rank

Scenario A 2

Scenario B 2

Scenario C 4

Scenario D 1



Scenario A 1

Scenario B 4

Scenario C 3

Scenario D 2



Scenario A 2

Scenario B 2

Scenario C 1

Scenario D 4



Scenario A 1

Scenario B 4

Scenario C 2

Scenario D 2


High School Choice

How should the high school choice program be handled in the future?




How should the high school choice program be handled

in the future?Count Percent

It should be left alone 3 16%

Make minor modifications 4 21%

It needs completely revamped 3 16%

Eliminate choice and redraw high school boundaries 9 47%


























High School Choice

Please provide any additional feedback for your answer about high school choice


Please provide any additional feedback for your answer regarding high school choice

No choice

I think the high school boundaries need to follow the k-8 maps.

Choice is important; options are needed to meet various needs of kids.

Relook at which students / criteria have choice

I think it will depend on the final redistricting model for the elementary levels.

I chose completely revamp, but that could include the bottom choice as an option, which would be to eliminate choice and draw new boundaries.

The imbalance that has begun to surface between the enrollment at the two schools will need to be addressed in some way moving ahead.

Have to keep a balance somehow. Open choice can't work in such systems, they overload.

Neighborhoods that have to split after junior high should still be given options. Other requests should be tightened down to limit that number.

I just worry about kids choosing for the wrong reason (load up a strong athletic team)

The high schools should both offer similar academic and extracurricular programs

Choice creates a multitude of other issues that outweigh the benefits. Reason for choice by family comes into play.

Feeder Decision should be made at Jr high not splitting rsjh splitting between fab and HsE

Equitable programs, grow programs at each school, elimate athletic choice, if you have choice HS, have choice every where - doesn't make sense

If no choice, IB at both. Exact / similar offerings

It's not good for our community as a whole. If we believe all of our schools are great, no matter where you live, your school experience will be

great.


High School Choice



Eliminating choice allows for a true feeder system.

Going by boundary would eliminate, what I feel, is a scenario where some are moving to another school due to factors that are more neighbor-

hood or coffee chat/soccer chat items...it also unnecessarily feeds into one school being "better" than the other.

Has caused and will continue to cause inequity in programming both in academics and athletics. Also causes increased splits at the JH level.

The final approved redistricting should help guide this decision.


High School Choice

The choice should only be allowed for the students who attend either FJH or RJH and are the small percentage that then go to the high school

This hasn't affected me yet, but either way is fine with me currently.

I think the lines need to be redrawn and everyone needs to just go where they are designated to go. No more grandfather in or choice because of

sports.

I like the idea of having a choice but do not know enough about the program to know if it needs minor changes or total revamp. I would not like

the choice option to go away

Should be 100% feeder from junior highs.

I don't know what high school choice is so I don't have enough background to answer the previous question. I only have elementary kids at this

point.

Redraw the lines, allow students who are district to HSE but attend riverside JR high and fishers JR high have the choice to attend Fishers HS

Just need to bite the bullet and draw the lines accepting cannot please everyone

You need to limit choice to those who are at FJH and districted to HSE. Fall Creek and HIJH should NOT have the option to choose FJH.

The last questioned was posed, but we were not provided any information to truly evaluate it. Many of us are parents of younger students and

do not fully understand the choice program.

Keep focus on sustainability.

If the high schools don't offer the same programs, then there could be reason to go to one school over another....such as the IB program.

I think boundaries need redrawn and then choice revisited. If choice offered, transportation should be offered. Relying on students/families for

transportation may cause numerous issues for congestion, etc. More info is definitely needed to share an educated response on this issue.

I think the first step is to redraw the boundaries to provide parity population sizes and then review the option for school choice after redrawing




High School Choice

those boundaries. I think school choice should be required for academic reasons primarily. You need more background information to make an

informed opinion about this matter.

I do not like having to make one choice here. It has to be based on families. Redrawing the boundaries is okay but you have to include choice af-

ter that. We need to know more of the issues and concerns prior to be asked this random question. It's impossible to give an appropriate con-

sistency based on the information.

I have a 1st and 6th grader so not first hand knowledge but I feel like it's important to have choice for various reasons personally for each stu-

dent. I do want to keep them balanced though.

It should be 100% feeder from JH/INT as that's where the kids make the best friends and would go with them to HS.

opposite of their peers. This could also be accomplished by redrawing the lines but the schools won't balance due to the size of HIJH. Students in

those areas that go against the other students should be offered transpiration but students outside of that group shouldn't be allowed to choose.

It's hard to say as a do not have high schoolers. However if the lines stay the same it will affect my daughter and my neighborhood. I think it

definitely needs modifications. However I do think that lines should be redrawn at some point down the road.

By revamp, I mean the lines need to be redrawn first. After which choice can be allowed for certain areas on the border or for educational pro-

gram needs (especially FJH/RSJH students). I want to see the lines redrawn and keep a modified choice program.

I do feel like the feeder system is very important factor

I need to learn about the topic before I can provide recommendations / feedback or thoughts on the high school choice program.

In my opinion if the problem needs to be fixed, fix it. I think looking at what solves problems longer term is the best option. I am ok with an ini-

tial difficult decision.

Feeder system doesn't work into the high schools due to one JH having fewer kids. If feeder system is important then this should continue into

high school.




High School Choice

Grandfathering has been a question that comes up....

100% feeder. It is not going to be even enough with choice. If even is the goal, making a definite line is better.

Students at FJH and RJH are the only students who should have choice minus IB. Ideally the line needs redrawn but until then leave choice to

FJH and RSI students currently districted HSE until then. The district cannot and probably never will be able to accommodate "flipper neighbor-

hoods " at FCJH OR HIJH so if the district is going to place the burden of shifting us west they owe us the option to stay to the west for HS. This

is a much harder and bigger burden to families than the district acknowledges. by testing kids and parents away from their networks. Please do

not continue to minimize this impact to families.

You will need to address the IB program to make it equitable between the high schools. There just needs to be a 100% feeder system so junior

high kids are not split between high schools. I strongly favor a 100% feeder system to eliminate issues with friends being split up after junior

high, when solid friendships are in place. The athletic directors really want a feeder system to the high schools. There is recruiting going on be-

tween the high schools and junior highs which is crazy.




High School Choice

Group 3 - Teachers

A full redistricting from k-12 needs to be done so JHs are not split between HS

Provide a new feeder system based on what the new plan will be.

Please draw line. Have IB at both schools or neither. Grandfather in kids currently are in high school.

Send students to an assigned high school based on where they live.

I believe students should have a choice between which high school they would like to attend. I believe transportation should be provided for stu-

dents to support their choice.

Choice creates too many issues for population. Busing needs to be cleaned up. The district needs to be firm with the parents and make a decision.

Grandfathering could be allowed, but needs to have strict guidelines

It is a huge athletic issue. While they say they don't try to get kids to come to different buildings it does happen. I am not a proponent of athletics,

but it is a serious issue. You should only be able to switch if you want to do the IBA program and nothing more. It's ridiculous. We should not be

allowing parents to decide. Bc then the high schools get involved and they start trying to get players to come over to their building instead of the

other and it becomes "what can you offer me?".

For kids in the small pocket of Riverside and Fishers Jr. High, they should get to choose and should be given transportation. It's not right to sep-

arate students from friends.

Allow "grandfathering" to students who attend a specific high school to get to finish their academic years at the same school.

If the small percent of kids at FJH and RJH could go to FHS with transportation, that could be a minor change. Support Grandfathering families.

Support redrawing boundaries if it means buses with consideration for those 2 groups of kids.



High School Choice

Please provde any additional feedback you have about Scenario D

Group 4 - Students

I think people should have the choice to go to the school they want, but for the younger kids, transportation to school and the proximity to home

needs to be taken into consideration.

You should be able to choose but with minor restrictions, someone that lives way in Fishers should not be able to attend Hamilton HS

I understand kids want to be able to choose their own school, but it causes over population. Allow only a certain amount to go to whatever high

school they want. if they miss the cut off to apply it's their own fault for procrastinating. Also eventually there will need to be a third high school.

I think there should always be a choice for the high schoolers because this is their last school before college and they would like to chose the best

place to get the best education for what they would like to pursue in college.

I feel they should just leave it alone because I feel we meet new people and getting to pick our high school is cool. I have a choice and we have a

bus that runs through my neighborhood that has both buses so it is good that we can choose what high school we go to.

I chose this because students should be able to have a choice on where they want to go for their high school career. Some schools have better op-

portunities for different career paths, which means they should be able to have transportation towards their desired school. The only issue is, is

that there will be over populated schools. The perfect solution would be to build more high schools with the same or even better opportunities

for the students surrounding the district.

The transportation to your choice school should not be stopped. Kids who already go to a choice school are being severely affected. I definitely

think that high school choice should remain a option especially since both high schools offer different programs and provide higher offerings in

different areas.

Choice is important for kids who want different academic or athletic opportunities. I believe this choice should be open to all students. For trans-

portation, there could be one or two buses going to pick up kids who want to go to their chcoice high school.

I think that there should be more restrictions in place, for example, the students might have to present a valid explanation as to why they want to

go to that particular school, there can also be restrictions on the number of people who can go to their school of choice and this can be done on a

first come, first serve basis.



High School Choice

Group 4 - Students

I believe that high school choice should remain as is, with minor modifications. I think that if you're able to drive, you should be able to choose

which high school no matter how far away from it you live (assuming this is only involving Fishers/HSE students). However, I think if you live

too far away from one school and can't drive, you shouldn't make a bus come and get you because that would cost too much time and money

over the course of the year.

If the feeding from junior high to high school was 100% I think it would be ok to get rid of choice, because you would go to high school with all

the kids you went to junior high with. If you went to high school with your friends, I wouldn't care what school I went to.

I am not entirely clear about how the choice program works. It makes sense to me that families on the boundaries between high schools should

have that choice. However, kids that I have heard from personally make it out to be very much a case-by-case privilege. Still, I have heard of kids

from far into the Fishers boundaries go to HSE. Nothing personal against those kids, but if they are getting bused over, it seems like a big incon-

venience in terms of gas and time. Overall, I think that it could be beneficial to examine the specifics of the choice program.



High School Choice


Choices are important

Helps kids be with their friends. That is a big factor to success and mental health (stress, anxiety).

I don't know enough about the high school districts and trust the board and administrators to make the right decision.

N/A

Choice is important but not sports reasons

It is important to keep a policy consistent for several years to track effectiveness.

Ideally, within the district, both high schools are providing the same high quality experience and education. It shouldn't be necessary to travel to

a school outside of the one designated to you.

Critical that any change be communicated with at least 4-5 years for families to navigate the change.


Documents

HAMILTON SOUTHEASTERN SCHOOL DISTRICT...Hamilton Southeastern Schools - Focus Group Results 2 INTRODUCTION On September 27, 2018, five focus group meetings were held to solicit feedback