Last night's boundary change meeting gave us a good indication of how each school board member will vote on June 10. Most, if not all, members indicated their dislike of option B1, while four members touted C4. I urge those members to use this next week to further research option C4 and come to the realization that C4 is a replica of B1 with the exception of a small notch on the north side splitting the Carriage/Knob Hills neighborhood in two. Everything they said was wrong with B1 is also wrong with C4.
One change in C4 increases the capacity of Jeffers Pond to 92% within a few years while including a large area possible growth to the west. This in itself may cause us to revisit boundary change within a few years. Additionally, it will cause students from a neighborhood within 0.5 miles to be bused past their current school through downtown to Westwood on the other side of the lake.
I urge those members to look at where some of the boundary lines are drawn for C4 and see that there is an eastern boundary along a fence line of back yards. Houses with adjoining back yards will eventually go to different schools.
One of the comments about C1 was the look of the Westwood boundary that stretched from the west side of the district (which is undeveloped) to downtown. To that, I implore the members to envision the Westwood boundary in C4. From a birds-eye view it may be pleasing, but the lake is immovable. C4 creates a giant horseshoe of a boundary for Westwood that, if laid flat, would dwarf the boundary in question for C1.
If we want a solution that puts the district in a position to handle growth for the next 5-plus years, C1 should be voted in next week. I urge those members who indicated their intention to vote otherwise to take the time to compare C4 to what they disliked about B1. It is obvious that C1 leaves capacity at the district-edge schools, where growth is expected. C1 minimizes disruption and keeps students within the boundary of their closest school.