Call this meeting to order. Please rise for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Welcome everyone to tonight's board meeting. We will, move on to item two, academic excellence recognition. Good evening, doctor Albright, mister Mapes, board of trustees. I have the honor of introducing you to our academic excellence spotlight students this evening.
This was a project that brings real world learning and cross grade connections to life. So English as a new language students from Hamilton Southeastern High School recently took their classroom learning into New Britain Elementary, where they taught a lesson on voice to our kindergarten through third grade students, and many of these students are also English language learners. As part of the speech and ethnic literature course, these juniors spent the semester building confidence in public speaking. For their final assessment, they created and led a hands on activity to help younger students understand how voice
strengthens communication, which you'll see in just a moment. The project was made possible through the collaboration among teachers, Becky Schroeder and Kelsey Habig at the high school and Kelly Dara at New Britain. While this isn't as the second year of the co taught class, at HSE High School, it does mark the first time that we've included an elementary partnership. The high school class, represents nine languages, Arabic, Japanese, Spanish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Vietnamese, Shona, Karen, and Indonesian. These experiences gave students the chance to model strong language learning skills,
practice leadership, and serve as role models for our young students. By engaging students as teachers, this project shows how academic excellence grows when learners are empowered to use their voice and contribute to their community. And now we have a short video to share. Only one. It's okay. It's okay. It's we it doesn't have to be perfect. At New Britain Elementary, a meaningful learning experience took shape. So allow kids. A wide range of languages and global backgrounds, visited k three classrooms as teachers for the day, using their own voices and experiences to help younger learners find theirs.
It's been really fun to see the high schoolers and, like, as young as kindergarten up through third grade to collaborate for them to find similarities in each other then and just a chance to talk. I think that's really was our biggest goal. We know that how students speak is how they're going to write and that it enhances their vocabulary and their ability to read. This visit was the culminating experience for a co taught E and L speech and ethnic literature course for juniors, allowing them to apply their speaking skills in authentic settings and grow as leaders. I don't know. It's so special, like, working with kids. Their teachers say this work matters because it helps students recognize the strength and value
of their own voice. Yeah. Speech made me, like, talk more English because I I'm, like, a lot I'm a little bit shy. It's hard to me to talk to another person, but that class helped me a little bit more. It's speech class. Same standard, same everything. We kinda just tweak things to meet the needs more of our language learners. This crossgrade partnership shows how empowering student voice builds confidence, strengthens communication, and connects our school community one classroom, Thank you, guys. Thank you. Alright. We will now move on to 3.01
public comments on posted agenda items. And we have a number of people listed. I will, ask you to come to the podium, state your name, and then you have three minutes to address the item that you wish to talk about. The first person is Leah Burke speaking on the redistricting plan. Hi. Good evening. My name is Leah Burke, and I have two daughters at Geist Elementary School. We live in the Temau Place neighborhood. Last month was actually the first school board meeting that I attended. And I just actually wanna tell you all, how impressed I was with how this board works and with the school administration and
just the collaborative process. My neighborhood was going to be split in version four of the redistricting proposal presented last month. Some neighbors, and I came last month and spoke about how splitting neighborhoods would not just negatively impact us, but really the Fishers community at large, how that would not be good for us. And some other families expressed unrelated concerns about their own impacts. What I can tell you is we were heard. Questions were asked. You all asked several great questions. We had a conversation. A few board members and administration approached us afterwards and expressed support.
All of the input that I heard last month discussed is reflected in the proposal that mister Bishop is going to bring forward to you tonight for vote. Thank you. Thank you for listening. Thank you for valuing our community and caring about the impact that it has on these families. Honestly, I assumed that the surveys and the responses to emails, were just for optics. I know that we cannot please everyone. It is impossible. And I assumed that feedback would go into a dark hole. You all proved me wrong, and we are so appreciative of that. I'm proud to be part of the HSE community to know that we collaborate together.
And we don't always get it perfect, but we get it as right as we can for as many people as we can. So on behalf of zones fifty one and fifty two, we ask you to approve the proposal. We thank you so much, Mr. Bishop. I do not want your job, but you do a great job. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll now move on to Jessica Vince speaking on the same topic. Good evening, Board. Good evening, Mr. Mapes. Thank you so much for this opportunity. I am from, the 005 Planning Unit.
I live in Blue Ridge Creek, and, I've done a lot of work and research since the last November board meeting, and, I'd like to share some of that with you tonight. I would like to talk about, the transportation efficiency. At the October 20 redistricting open house, Wolpert stated, to a few of my community members, that our area, that Planning Unit Five-six, aligns most efficiently with HSE High School. HSE High School sits directly next to FCI, Fall Creek Intermediate, and, FCJH,
Fall Creek Junior High. Our current routes already run north to south on Oleo And Summer Road. These routes are established, direct, and efficient. The intermediate distance, the district's travel data confirms that Fall Creek Intermediate is 5.7 miles from our area, which is eleven minutes away. To Sand Creek, it's about equal distance. It's 4.6 miles or 10. It's only one minute difference. But Sand Creek Intermediate requires a less efficient east to west route. Wolper identified these routes as slower and more complex in that meeting.
Our junior high data is even more clear. Fall Creek Junior High is eleven minutes from us. Fishers Junior High is fourteen minutes, over one mile further. And they also travel on that east to west, travel, which is heavier traffic, more major intersections, longer ride times, higher operational costs, and reduced efficiency. The bottom line is that there's no transportation benefit to moving our area. The proposal increases distance, travel time, routing complexity, and it also breaks our natural alignment with HSE High School.
If the goal is efficiency, safety and operational stability, then the data strongly supports keeping our neighborhood in the Fall Creek theater pattern. I want to thank you for listening to me today. I have placed a graphic with some data on there. We have a petition at the bottom that you're welcome to look at. We've had over three twenty five people sign. Thank you so much for your time. We'll now move on to Stephanie March, speaking on redistricting. Alright. Good evening, mister Mapes and the board of trustees. I'm speaking on behalf of zero zero five about the issue of stability and how
this proposal disproportionately affects one small corridor of families. Our neighborhood were reassigned in 2019, again in 2022, and now again in 2026. That would mean three moves in eight years for more than any other part, far more than any other part of HSC. For some of the current seventh graders in the 005 and 006 area, that means they started at Durban in 2018, moved to Southeastern in '20, '19, moved to Deer Creek in 2022 just for redistricting, then moved on to intermediate at either HIJH or Fall Creek.
Most students in this district experienced one major transition. Our zero zero five zero zero six students have experienced multiple moves at only seventh grade, and now they're being asked to move once again based on a forecasted capacity concern three years from now. Forecasts are not guarantees. We've seen projections shift dramatically in past cycles as development changes, but the harm caused by another school move is immediate, real and well documented. Academic performance, relationships, mental health and student belonging suffer with repeated transitions.
Today's data shows Fall Creek Intermediate and Junior High are within district targets. Transportation is already efficient. Our routes align with HSE High School. There is no present day operational or capacity reason to move us. Balancing a hypothetical future scenario on the backs of the only corridor that has been moved three times is not equitable and does not uphold the district's stated priorities of stability and minimizing disruptions. Our students deserve the same long term stability the rest of HSE enjoys. Thank you.
I just like to interject here. Is anyone on the list to speak that isn't talking about five and six? We are. Okay. Can I get your name? Cynthia Barker for four. Okay. And who else? Amanda Reed is with me. We were just going to speak together as well. And any anybody else other than 005 or 006? You're talking about the zone? Yes. Yes. I'm not in that zone. Okay. But I've just What's your name? Megan Alexis.
If it's okay with the audience, we have an alternate proposal that includes those sections going into Fall Creek. And we will pause five and six public comment, let these ladies speak on theirs and then let Wolpert and Mr. Rausch come up and show the presentation and then see if we have other public comments that you'd like to make. And if not, then let the Board kind of move on with their meeting and be able to take action later.
Is that Yes. All right. We will So next is Megan Alexis. Good evening. I live in the woods at Geist Overlook neighborhood. And according to the data presented at the November board meeting, our neighborhood includes 17 elementary school students, nine intermediate school students, and eight junior high students. We are a small community of only 90 homes, yet this proposal disproportionately impacts our children. My daughter is one of four graders from our neighborhood currently attending HIJH. If the plan proceeds as presented, these four students will have attended five different schools in the span of five years.
Coming from TCE in fourth grade, moved to HIJH in fifth grade, they will then move to F Fishers Intermediate in sixth grade, Fishers Junior High for seventh and eighth, and then HIJH for high school. As an educator of twenty seven years of experience, I know firsthand the importance of stability in a child's education, especially during the critical middle school years when students experience significant academic, social, and emotional growth. Frequent transitions can lead to increased anxiety and social challenges, and I'm deeply concerned about the lasting effects this instability could have on our children's
well-being. I also question the necessity of this particular boundary adjustment. According to your own presentation, Fall Creek Intermediate currently enrolled eight eighty eight students, and the proposed plan increases that number to eight ninety two, a difference of only four students. It is difficult to understand how moving nine children from our small neighborhood achieves a meaningful balance in enrollment numbers, particularly when the impact on those children is so great. On a personal note, as a single mother and a full time teacher in another district, I rely heavily on the support of my neighbors for childcare and transportation
My neighbor, who works at HIJH, has a daughter in the same grade as mine. If his child is allowed to remain at HIJH due to his employment but mine is reassigned, I lose critical support that helps me manage my professional and family responsibilities. This would create a significant hardship for my family. I respectfully urge the board to consider the stability and well-being of the nine students from the Woods at Geist Overlook. Please allow our neighborhood to remain within the HIJH pathway, or at the very least, allow our four fifth graders to be grandfathered into the current HIJH assignment until they
reach high school. Thank you sincerely for your time and your thoughtful consideration. We'll now move on to Cynthia Barker. If we're still included in the Fall Creek District, we can waive our comments as well. You are commenting on what she just No. We're We're four, they're five to six. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We will now move on to the consent. I believe so. Is there anyone else that was going to speak on any other aspect of redistricting? We'll move on to the consent agenda, item four.
There are five items presented on tonight's consent agenda: 4.01 Board Minutes 4.02 Personnel Reports 4.033 claims payrolls four zero three and four fifty seven salary reduction agreements 4.04 prepay authorizations and 4.05 property and causality insurance renewal. Do I have a motion to approve the entire consent agenda as presented? Motion to approve consent agenda as presented. Second. I will now call the question.
I will do this by roll call. Suzanne Thomas? Yes. Sarah Parks Riess? Yes. Patricia Schooley? Yes. Ben Orr? Yes. Dawn Lang? Yes. Tiffany Pascoe? Yes. And I'm a yes. And this is seven-zero. We will now move to we're now going to go to 5.05, Redistricting Plan and Recommendation, which is Brian Rausch and Andrew Bishop. I've asked Andrew to come and present this evening. You will notice that in the presentation, there is a change to give you an alternate to hear from
Planning Areas four, five and six as Mr. Mapes presented. Andrew will be available here at the end for questions. So thank you. Sorry, one second. I'm just getting situated here. All right. So when we last spoke in January, we went over this time line. I just wanted to show it to you all again. We're at the recommendation phase. We've gone through all the different steps, pulling the individual community, meeting community members, meeting with them in public and doing additional surveys and letting them provide that input. So we gave an initial recommendation in November.
We've got some additional feedback from community members. I know you all have heard from community members and so we wanted to take that those items into consideration to provide a final recommendation tonight and then as Mr. Mapes has said, provide an alternate option based on some of the additional feedback we're getting tonight. So, real quick, we'll just look at the initial recommendation and we're not going to spend a lot of time on this. This is what was presented in November. So this is the current elementary attendance boundaries. This is what was proposed to have changed. So the hatched lines just show the areas that are proposed to move to each
school. The underlying color show the new proposed attendance boundary. And then this is that map again without the hatch line, so you can see what those final those initial recommendations had looked like. And we provide we did the same at Jeff, this is not working here, the clicker. So this is the current intermediate school boundaries, and then this was the initial recommendation. So, again, the hatch lines indicate the areas that we're supposed to move, and then this is what it looks like without that that hatching. So the what that final boundary would look like.
And then the same for the junior high school. So intermediate and junior high school boundaries are identical, but I just provide separate maps. So what we and then this is the what I wanted to note here is you will see that when we look at maybe a Southeastern or Thorpe Creek, our utilization is in the 90% range for those schools. But what we've done is we've right sized those boundaries where Southeastern now is able to accommodate all of the enrollment in its boundary, or Creek is able to accommodate all the enrollment in its boundary.
And with the remaining limited development opportunities, those schools should be able to accommodate that additional enrollment growth. The outlier here is Deer Creek. So they are sitting at 91%. As we've looked at this data, the only meaningful impact that we could provide today is really to split the Deerpath neighborhood, cut a neighborhood in half and send students one way or the other. And you're talking about neighbors like right on the same street. And just in the polling, what you guys have heard, what we've heard, that's not popular. So Deer Creek sitting at 91%,
We've got some developments coming up in that area. And so, the reality is that the district is probably going to need to look at an expansion of that campus at some point. So, it provides some additional classroom space, similar to what's happened at Hidge. When you look at the intermediates and junior high schools, our intermediate schools have a lot of here is Hamilton Southeastern. So they're sitting high at 95% utilization. But again, we've right sized that boundary. They're accommodating everybody in their boundary. We're not having to ship kids in from other areas or send them to other
charter schools. The rest of our intermediates and junior highs, they're in the low 90s, high 80% utilization. So, getting fairly balanced in our schools in that recommendation. What I wanted to do here is talk about some of the adjustment considerations, things that we heard last time and things that we have helped us make adjustments to this final recommendation that you'll see in a few minutes. So first, I'm going to focus on planning Units 10 And 11. You haven't heard from anybody in these planning blocks because there's no citizens who live there. This is the mall. There was after I looked at this, I noticed in my recommendation that I had recommended these two blocks to Sand Creek
Elementary, but then at the junior high and intermediate levels, they were proposed to Fall Creek. And so that would have created a split feeder pattern. Even if there's no students there, I think it's for just continuity, it would probably make sense instead of assigning them to a Jerrick Creek in the initial recommendation, let's just or instead of moving in the Sand Creek, let's leave them out of Deer Creek, so that we don't have a split feeder pattern there. Next, our plan in Units 51 And 52. So, this is where we have the Canal Place subdivision,
we've got the Enclave at Seaplegase and then the Valleys At Geist subdivisions. So, in the initial option two, these that was pulled to the public, we had proposed these boundaries to stay at Geist. And then in the recommendation, we had proposed to move them to a Fall Creek feeder pattern knowing that Geis is pretty loaded and we have room at Fall Creek. But we heard from the community there. There's 160 homes between those three subdivisions. It's only 21 elementary kids and six of them are fifth graders.
So we're really talking about 15 additional kids with maybe some new incoming kindergartners next year that would come in the guidance. And so and the community feedback we heard was, please help us remain that guidance. And so when we get to the final recommendation, we'll address this. Next, I wanted to focus on Planning Blocks 8485, And 89. So Planning Block 89 is where the Saw Sawgrass Subdivision is. I know some of you all have heard from those, community members as well. I highlighted these three planning units together because together these three are currently assigned to
Hoosier Road and they are also assigned to the Riverside Intermediate Boundary. Now in our recommendation, we had proposed that Blocks 84 And 85 would move to the Sand Creek Fishers, the Plains boundary at the next level and that Block 89 would follow the Fall Creek feeder pattern. And that was to align the rest of the areas that we're proposing to bring into Hoosier Road that would be at Fall Creek. So we're really splitting that Hoosier Road feeder pattern. We're splitting it two ways in the recommendation sending some to the Sand Creek Fishers
and then the others to Fall Creek. But what we heard from planting Block 89 in Sawgrass is that they would prefer to remain at Riverside at that next level. And in fact, when you go into the surveys we did on the initial options, when you break it down by planning unit, blocks 84 And 85, they really preferred option number two. And so option two is where we sent them to the Fall Creek or Sand Creek Fishers feeder pattern and Block 89 was sent to the Fall Creek feeder pattern.
Well, when you look at those same survey results, Block 89 preferred options three and four. And options three and four is where it kept them at Riverside. So it's almost reverse pulling between those blocks where those blocks eighty four and eighty five, they want to go to Sand Creek fishers. But Block 89 does not want to go to Fall Creek. They want to remain at Riverside. And so what that means is, the district can accommodate these changes and that's no problem. But if we were to accommodate that change, what this does is it creates a three way feeder pattern for Hoosier Road where
those pink blocks that you see on the map, they would all be assigned to Hoosier Road and then they would be assigned to Sand Creek Fishers. A bunch of the other areas that we propose to move into Hoosier Road, that's Blocks 1 or 7172 in there, they would be at Fall Creek, but that means Block 89, while they would be attending Hoosier Road at the elementary level, that small group of students would push off to Riverside Intermediate at the next level. So we're really isolating a small pocket of kids in that situation,
but the preference from the community is to remain there and Riverside has more than the ability to house those kids. Next, we're going to look at planning Units 45 and 6, the big ones, right? So first we'll start with Planning Unit 4. So when we have put out the proposal the proposed options to the public, four had remained in the Fall Creek feeder powder. And then when we put the recommendation together, we had pushed that into the Sand Creek Fishers. And with that, sorry, I need to get my notes up,
please. So we had proposed to move them into the Fall Creek or into the Sand Creek Fishers feeder pattern in the recommendation. And right now, there's about three fifty homes. There's 90 homes in the Stoney Creek subdivision. There's two fifty homes that are planned within SiloBridge that we still estimate about 110 left to be constructed. And so right now those homes are producing 28 intermediate students and 16 junior high school students. So with some additional homes, we can probably expect another $10,000,000
to $15,000,000 at each level once Silo Ridge is completed. So and what we've heard from the community is that they would prefer to stay at fault. And then when we look at planting units five and six, so these are larger planting units here and there's a lot more homes. There's about five fifty homes between these two planning blocks and 71 intermediate students and 61 junior high school students. So, in the initial option that went to the public, in the initial recommendation, we recommended these two blocks to stay at the Sand Creek Fishers feeder pattern.
We heard from one of the individuals in the community. While that was done intentionally, one of the criteria that I looked at initially from the public survey and the first survey was trying to assign kids to their closest school. Well, the closest school on paper at least at the intermediate level is Sand Creek Intermediate. And then at the junior high, it's going to be that Fall Creek Junior High is not going to be Fishers. And so, we I had taken that approach knowing we had room in that Sand Creek Fishers to accommodate some of those higher growth communities right now where we have a higher
number of students coming out to fill those seats and then provide some relief at Fall Creek as they are taking on some additional students. The community feedback obviously is to let those in. Right now, they're kind of split, right? 5 is currently assigned as a Hamilton Southeastern block and 6 is as Fall Creek. So, I think the sentiment would be to keep them assigned to either one of those schools, Fall Creek probably being the most obvious of the two. And so we did take that information and we put together a final recommendation.
So this recommend the final recommendation you're going to see after this, it's going to keep planting units ten and eleven assigned to Deer Creek instead of moving into Sand Creek. It's going to keep planting units fifty one and fifty two assigned to Geist instead of reassigning them to Fall Creek. It will keep planting Unit 4 assigned to Fall Creek instead of moving it to Sand Creek Fishers. It does so final recommendation does propose moving five and six to the Sand Creek Fishers feeder pattern. And then we recommend keeping planning Unit 89 assigned to Riverside,
intermediate junior high. Again, that creates a three way split, but the community's desire is to remain at that Riverside feeder pattern. So that's something that can be accommodated with this. And then lastly, as we mentioned last time, the recommendation is to allow grandfathering process for all third, fifth and seventh graders so they can continue on at fourth, sixth or eighth or third at their schools. And then the grandfathering would be contingent on that parents provide their own transportation and that there is capacity at the school they want to attend. So again, this is the current elementary boundaries
and this is the final recommendation that I've shared. So again, you see there's no boundary change up there between Sand Creek and Deer Creek. And then when we look at the Canal Place and Enclave at Steeplechase, down in the purple and Geist, they remain at that boundary at the elementary level. And then when we move to the intermediate, so again, this is our current intermediate boundary. And when we look at the recommendation, you can see that sawgrass is now remaining that peach color.
So they are we're not recommending boundary change at that level. And you can't see Planning Block 4 on the large map, but on the inset map, it has been moved back to Fall Creek. And so then the same recommendation at the junior high school level just for those boundaries. And so what that means when we look at our proposed enrollments is that you see, a little bit of a shift in the proposed enrollments and utilizations at Fall Creek as we're moving some kids in.
We've also taken some kids out. Right? We've taken pushing some students back to Riverside Intermediate, and then we've added some students back in. So you're seeing a little bit of a drop in utilization at that Sand Creek Fishers attendance boundaries for those schools as we've taken some kids out of those future patterns. But overall, we're still Fall Creek is still in the high 80s utilization, so we're not approaching 90%. And the difference here is you see a Sand Creek sitting 83% and then a little bit lower when you get to the junior high school for Fishers as well.
But again, nothing that can't be accommodated. And so as Mr. Mapes had mentioned, we wanted to then show you all an alternate option that focuses on planning units five and six. So we've heard a lot from those communities and it's not my intention as the consultant to make families feel isolated or that they're targeted in these processes. One thing that maybe I could have done better early on is I didn't ask some of the folks about how many times have you been redistricted. I came in trying to give myself a fresh slate. Let me have a fresh look at things without maybe being bogged down by what
has happened in the past because then I can hamper myself. But then what I've seen in this process is that I have isolated some families and making them feel like they're targets of every redistricting. And that's going to happen a lot of times, right, when we have areas of high growth and we have other areas of decline. We're going to have to redistrict in those high growth areas because we've got too many kids and we got to get so it's ultimately going to happen. It's not my intention to isolate them and so we wanted to bring forth an alternate option that can maybe address some of these concerns and help the Board make
their decision. So again, we'll focus on Planning Units 45 And 6. So this is just again a map I shared last time showing some of the subdivisions, the number of students in each of these areas. So like I said, there's 70 some odd kids intermediate in Blocks 5 And 6 and almost another 70 junior high. Fewer students when we talk about planning Block 4. And so the new recommendation or the final recommendation, this is what those boundaries look like, right, where we recommend pushing Block 4 back to Fall Creek and I had mentioned Blocks
5 And 6 would remain at the same creek, Fisher's Cedar pattern. Well, what we also have to consider when we look at that Fall Creek feeder pattern is if you look at Block 179 there and then Block 177, we've got some large developments planned for those blocks. So in 179 we've got Finch Creek. There's almost 500 apartments, over 500 single family homes planned. They are actively building. Those Finch Creek is actively building. We're starting to see kids come out of there, right? Gatewood Lakes, that's another 3,000 plus units on paper right now.
It's a little bit further out. Noblesville is estimating they break ground on some infrastructure maybe in 2026. That's a maybe, right? That can maybe push a little bit later. But there's a number of homes that are going to be popping up there in the next seven to ten years. So a little bit further down the line, but again, things that we want to consider. So when I look at this information, I look at these, I did calculate some simple student yields. So I looked at information from Hamilton County as far as new homes that were constructed specifically in Noblesville.
And so I identified three fifty nine single family homes and another 144 apartments in that area that were constructed within the previous five years. So previous five years meaning 2020 to 2024 because because we're not through 2025 yet. And you can see the number of students I have matched at each level to some of those newly constructed properties. And what you see here is single family homes are producing about 0.3 students or 30 elementary, intermediate, and junior high school students in Noblesville for every 100 homes built.
So, you know, that that translates to about 19 elementary kids, another eight intermediate and about five junior high school kids per 100 homes. And then when you look at the multifamily homes, it's about half that rate. So it's about a 0.2, 0.21 overall, six elementary kids per 100 apartments. We see a little bit higher at the junior or intermediate level about eight students per 100 apartments and then two junior high school. So if we just simply apply those student yields to those units identified on the last slide, what you see is a student potential,
right? This is potential. It doesn't mean it's going to it's a spot on estimate, right? But Finch Creek, we have the potential for another 172 elementary, 100 intermediate, 43 junior high. And then when we do that same exercise and we start looking at Gatewood Lakes, we're talking another four forty two elementary, 200 plus intermediate and another 100 plus junior high. And so these are things that we'd want to consider, right? We know Finch Creek is actively building and we know Gatewood Lakes is coming on
at some point in the future. That's going to be something the district just kind of monitors, is going to continue to monitor over the next couple of years to see how it moves. So what we propose is instead of moving Blocks five and six to the Sand Creek Fishers feeder pattern, we would leave them at Fall Creek. So they can remain at Fall Creek as that's the next closest school for them. And then we would take Blocks ten and eleven, one hundred and eighty and one hundred and seventy nine and push those into a Sand Creek Fisher's feeder powder. So it kind of stretches that boundary a little bit further east.
And what it allows us to do right now is take Block 179 where we have Finch Creek actually developing and we can set the precedent now that you are going to be in that Sand Creek Fishers feeder pattern. So as families move in, they're not being redistricted. That is the assignment. I did mention that there is a a handful of students coming out of the homes that have been constructed today. So, I believe when I looked at this, in September, there was two one intermediate and one junior high student. There may be two or three more now in that time that have moved in.
So something to consider. But for the majority of the homes, they haven't been constructed yet. So an option like this, what it does is it we don't take away we put more of the burden on Fall Creek today where they're handling a higher enrollment. But we're taking away some of that development potential, especially over the next five years as Finch Creek completes. Those new students won't be showing up in Fall Creek. And so as Fall Creek continues to age, some of the homes in Deer Creek age. We know some of the homes in Brooks School boundary.
There's not new housing opportunities there. As those families age and move through the system, we might get some kind of natural declines from the existing areas and then allow Fall Creek to level out. And then Sand Creek Fishers would be able to absorb the new students as they show up and help lift that enrollment at that school. So this is kind of a more of a long term type of thing. We're needing to look at present day and what the potential is in the future. So we're banking on in this option that the kids will show up and fill in
some of those seats at the Sand Creek Fishers that we're seeing some of those empty seats we're seeing today. So this is what that proposed boundary would look like. You can see the inset over on the left. It's like I said, it stretches a little bit further east, not so far north. And then I wanted to provide some additional information here. So when you look at Blocks 179 And 180, there's only like I said, as of the September enrollment I used, there was only seven students residing in Block 179, of which one was a sixth grader,
one was a seventh grader. The rest were elementary students. And they are all currently living in Finch Creek, Finch Creek addresses. And then in Block 180, there's only two students. One is an eighth grader, so they're gonna be in high school next year anyways. So really, it's gonna be one student that will be in second grade next year. They won't be impacted by these changes for another three you know, two or three years. So, this is something that we can do. So in this alternate recommendation, all the elementary boundaries would be identical to what we showed in the final recommendation. The only difference here is that Blocks five and six would be pushed to Fall
Creek and Blocks ten, eleven, one hundred and seventy nine and one hundred and eighty would flip flop to Sand Creek Fishers. And so then this table shows what that proposed enrollment and utilization would look like. So again, you see when you look at Fall Creek, we're encroaching over 90% utilized. But again, we're taking out some of that new development over the next couple of years. And so, it may not impact that school as much if we were, you know, to do a a swap like this. All of the elementary utilizations are gonna be identical to the final recommendation that I
showed on the previous slide. So it's really you just want to focus on intermediate and junior high at this stage. So like I said, we're swapping the known students today for the potential in the future between the two schools. But, this is a way that we can address the concerns of those folks in Blocks five and six to make sure that they're being heard in this process as well. Thank you. Now will anyone who wants to speak that had signed up, you're welcome to if you have something further to add. Is there anyone?
Just give your name, please, and you may go ahead and speak. Yes. Kristen Moats, part of five and six. I would be in support of the alternate option, because I'm trying to focus on the five zero four and the IEP children who are a part of this community, who have experienced many, many, many changes over the last, five, six, seven years in their academic careers. And what we're really seeking is stability for those children, especially when you look at some of the social aspects, and their development there and the programs that they seek and the teachers that they
seek, the anxiety of even going to a new building all summer. Right? It's those those those key pieces. I would be fully in support of that particular option because what I don't want to see happen is we're all here three, four years from now doing this again because we haven't planned appropriately for the new communities that are being built directly across the street from us. And I think that that would be even more of a travesty at this point is that we're not looking far enough in advance and we're going to be here another, you know, another three or four years. I'm not saying it doesn't have to happen as the community
is exploding in population, right? But as I look at these options, you know, people ask me all the time at work, hey, would you is there relocating from Dallas to Indy? Would you like to live here? I'm like, I probably would wait. Or I would seek, you know, possibly looking at private schooling, because this is a big concern. The stability for the children is a big concern. And I'm looking at that more so of, yeah, I might have a fifth grader and a high schooler, but at what point might you guys change the feeder pattern again and then we don't have open enrollment in the high schools and we're changing those things again? Because high school right now is open. How long will that remain?
Will that be an option for our fifth graders now? So, I'd like to see that consistency stay and that we're planning more for the future. So, I'd just like to say I would, definitely approve or, you know, go ahead and, be probably in the pros list for the alternate option. Nothing's perfect, but I think it's better than what was proposed earlier. Thank you. Anyone else from that group that would like to speak? Hi. My name is Jessica Rubinstein or no. That's my maiden. Knutson, and I'm speaking on behalf of five and six. I was here last month. I appreciate and I would urge the board to vote for alternative option.
I know personally with some of my neighbors the planning for previously for future development of very limited people who actually live there right now being taken into consideration with the prior recommendations was a little irritating of people who don't exist versus people who do exist who have been shuffled around. So I also wanna add that I know there's a lot of development in our area, but I know personally for just Turnberry at the park and Blue Ridge, which were connected, by a walking path,
that at least for Turnberry, a third of our neighborhood doesn't have children. They live in our homes, but they don't have children. And then with the two thirds that are left, about a third of them attend Our Lady of Grace, Lapel, Hamilton Heights, we have a family that goes there, and homeschooling. So only one third of our neighborhood even attends Hamilton Southeastern Schools, and some of those families' decisions might be religious for Our Lady of Grace, but it's also with the instability, like the other speaker said, in our area of being shuffled around and just being seen as a number versus actual people who exist with kids with IEPs,
like my own household, or just the consistency of wanting to be in a clear route from elementary school all the way to high school and not going all over town when we've lived in the same place. So again, I would appreciate if you could vote for the alternative option that was presented today and I appreciate it being presented. Thank you. My name's Tara Fisher. I also, am supportive of the alternate option. That was something that I was gonna suggest because I think people, when they move to a new place, plan to move their children to a new school.
And so, that seems like a natural transition for students rather than, moving kids who have already moved multiple times during their education. Thank you. Anyone else? Hi. I'm Rebecca Gautian. I'm going to speak on behalf of fifty two. I do agree with the new proposal that we stay at Fall Creek and not go to Sand Creek or Fishers, Junior High all because, Fishers Junior High has, like, the largest projection jump and it would be the jump would be like 12%.
No other junior high in HSE is facing that level of growth in a single redistricting cycle. If we move our students there, I feel like it would be a whole another Fishers Elementary all over again, having to remodel and redo so that we could build the school for moving of the students. So I do agree with the new proposal. Thank you. Anyone else? Hi. I'm Cynthia Barker. And I'm Amanda Reif. And Amanda spoke at the last board meeting. We represent Highlands at Stoney Creek and Silo Ridge 4.
And we would just like to say we appreciate, all the hard work and feeling heard, and we definitely support this newest recommendation. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? All right. Yes, go right ahead. Can we have some discussion and conversation? Yes, go ahead. Me first. So I do want to go back and let's look at some points here. We did have a speaker that spoke today about the Woods Of Geist. Can you point that out on the map of where that is? Is that the neighborhood that is off Fall Creek Road? Or is that the one over off of Olio Road?
Yes. Okay. So I want to pull up that map section. Can you pull up that map section for us, please? So if I'm not mistaken, they originally were HIJH, and we are now moving it, them to to Fall Creek Intermediate and Junior High, correct? What is the and can you clarify how many students are in that community right now? I don't have the numbers off the top of my head. I have to look at that for you. Okay. But And to your presentation last month, we have 17 elements of students, not only in the Okay. Okay. Just can you do you have a pointer? We don't which that's right there. And they're but they're currently HIJH.
And we're in our presentation today, can you tell me can someone remind me what our there we go. You can't look behind you? You can't eyes in the back of your head? So can you, either you or Brian, tell us how many are in HIJH right now? I know that is our smallest intermediate junior high at 600 some spaces. But what would that additional capacity for the period of time, adding them back into HIJH, moving that green over, what would that It's
that change was a two way move, right? We were moving them from Thorpe Creek to Fall Creek Elementary and then from Hitch to Fall Creek Intermediate Junior High. And I understand the elementary keep bringing them to Fall Creek Elementary as okay. I mean, but I'm asking about specifically the intermediate junior high level. I'll have to let I don't have the numbers off the top of my head. No. No. Right. We do. You just said that maybe it's the last map that told us what's at HIJH right now. With this proposal, what is this proposal with the alternative proposal?
How many I think it's in this final recommendation. What is it saying the HIJH numbers are? So, we've got five eighty nine intermediate. So, it would take us right now, five eighty nine. So taking roughly less than 20 would bring us to five, to six zero nine. Is that right? Yes. With a capacity of six twenty. So putting us almost at 100% utilization. But with the you know, the district would have the ability probably to house those additional students. It would create a split feeder pattern for Fall Creek Elementary. Okay. I just wanted to ask the question about and tonight,
I know we're looking to do some final approvals and that kind of thing. And I know in Robert Scholes, we can add an amendment if we wanted to, right? So that I would first want to ask, with these plans that we have going forward, I know I've had continuous talks with yourself and with Brian or sorry, Mr. Rausch. My concerns, and I'm going to just point overall, is we as a Board look at a whole entire school district, not just one section, not just one family. And we have to look at cost effectiveness for the whole entire district,
for operations for the whole entire district. That includes transportation, travel routes, bus hiring for bus fills, supplying staff for each of these buildings and making sure everything is justified and looking future down the road. Birds eye view, if you look at that map and look down, can't place blame on things that happened in the past, but we've built some elementary schools that are right on top of each other. We've built some our high schools, quite frankly, are very close to each other. So our community, when you look at Delaware, Wayne and Fall Creek, has to run north and south as opposed to east and west.
It just geographically and population wise that there were some comments tonight that this will provide us some stability, and I'm afraid it won't. I'm afraid that instead of going ten years or eight to ten years for stability of redistricting, even though we're making a community or an area, happy today, those kids are all gone in three to four years. And technically, as our community grows, we are not gonna have butts in seats. We have to continue, over time, continuing to move people west. Now that's not to say I'm not voting for support of it,
but I want it out there and on the record that for people to think that today's a fix, I'm gonna say today's a Band Aid to where we are of what we wanna be because I, as a realtor of twenty nine years, knowing of those permits in the building that you're talking about, and I'm looking at your traffic plan that, yes, people aren't there today, but they're coming, and we're gonna cross traffic them across town. We're gonna eventually have to fill buses that take them, and our bus routes are gonna cross like this, taking them to schools. I've talked to other board members too that right now we're choice,
which is amazing, that maybe what might need to happen is so people aren't feeling like they're crossing, is that the designated high school routes will change. Still school choice. But for example, just putting this out there, had we made, let's say, that whole o five four, five, six Fishers High School, moving everybody to Sand Creek Intermediate, Fishers Junior High, and all those, they're all traveling together and going back up to the same school. Now they feel like they're going left and they have to go back right again. And so that's on us.
That's on the board and administration to look at all those things. Today's work and the work that you've provided and Mr. Rausch has done has been absolutely outstanding. Listening to our community, taking our check boxes of these are the 10 things that we're looking to do, we checked them off, and we're making our community very happy. I'm speaking as an administrative position. I feel like what happened is which is great, we want to make our community happy and we want to do that for these 10 boxes. But now we took what was important for the district to keep us cost effective,
transportation on, operational well, we took from 10 boxes that we should have checked and maybe are checking five or six. And what we think and we're hoping for in this plan was to push this out that we're redistricting so we won't have to do this again for eight years. I'm putting it on the record as of today that I really strongly see that, unfortunately, we're going to have to redistrict again in five or six years, and it's all going to be because of butts in seats and having to move people over. And I'll finish on this. Every presentation that I go through with any big seminars with MIBOR or Baggy is
constantly tells us that the growth of Wayne Township is the footprint of Delaware and Fall Creek Township. Not one, both. And right now, our school district has 20,000 students in it with maybe a fraction of maybe 1,000 to 2,000 in that Wayne Township area. So when that grows out, it will be another 15,000 to 20,000 students over fifteen years that possibly that we as a district have to prepare for. This is a Band Aid solution. And I want to say I appreciate all the hard work you did to help
our different communities. But I'm wanting people to be prepared that we can't control that if we're not going to build more buildings, right? And there's a very good chance that Deer Creek in itself is going to have to be added on to, to keep up with that. And so it's just some of my points to say is: One, thank you for all your hard work. Thank you for listening to the community and making these adjustments, trying to explain where I'm looking at the whole big picture, the vision of it all. And I would like to I don't know if this is the time to say
it, but I would like to amend make a motion to amend that one section and put Woods Of Geist into HSE Junior High for intermediate and high intermediate and junior high, but keep it at Fall Creek Elementary. I don't know if there's a second or any of the Board would consider it, but I'd like to amend that proposal to add it there. Should we have other discussion first? Can we finish other discussion? Sure. Of course. Thank you. Anyone else with? So I definitely agree with a lot of Suzanne's points.
Thank you to Brian and to Andrew for coming up with the alternative option at the request of many of us and the community for those planning units five and six. I think that was really important to all of us or many of us, some of us. I don't know how many of us. But definitely, to me and the community members I spoke with, I think, as I mentioned, I don't know, two meetings ago, a couple months ago, whatever it was,
And like Suzanne alluded to, when we do this again and I never thought it was going to be eight or ten years, I knew it was going to have to be probably five years. We did it seven years ago, and we're already too late, I think, now because we've seen overcrowding. But when we do this again, the high schools are going to have to be included. I think it's great we have high school choice, and I hope we'll keep high school choice. But what I've heard from the community is those feeder patterns. And what I don't like about the alternative option is that even those new people
that are moving in are going to have that weird feeder pattern that Deerpath already has where we're going to Sand Creek and Fishers Junior High, but then we're districted back to Hamilton Southeastern High School. And so it's just it's weird when most of those kids from Fishers Junior High are all gonna go to to Fishers High School. And so right now, those students can choose to go to to Fishers High School if they want, but a lot of the community didn't trust that that that high school choice was
gonna be in place. And so I heard from not all of the community because some of them are die hard Royal fans, I have to tell you. They were like, Why did you show up in your Fisher sweatshirt, Sarah? Like, this is we're Royals country up here. But they were very nice. I'm just kidding. But, some of them said, if they had included the high schools and put us on the track to go to Fishers High School, we wouldn't be throwing a fit. But then some of them were like, no, we want to be royals. So I think it's just important.
I was hoping that when we did this whole redistricting that we would include the high schools and we would have an opportunity to fix Deerpath at that time too. But that ship has sailed and we're not doing that. But I think when we do it in five years, we've got to fix Deer Path, we've got to fix the if we approve the alternative option, we've got to fix those new committees that we're going to put on a weird feeder pattern tonight too. So, those are my points. And I really, before anyone else speaks,
want to give Tiffany the option to speak because she was concerned about being able to speak and being heard with the crazy Zoom microphones not always working. Thank you, Sarah. Madam president, may I do you have any problems with me going next? You're fine. Go ahead. Can you hear me? Yes. I just wanna say thank you, to the community members who showed up and relentlessly, expressed their concerns in the petitions, and it really does show regardless if you have a no local address or a Fisher's address that no matter what our community always pulls together.
And for that, I'm thankful. And and we're as a district, we're thankful to have parents and taxpayers such as yourself. So thank you so much. Also wanna thank, our admin and, Andrew for putting up with how tirely and relentless that I have been on this topic to make sure that the stability is it's for all districts, but that the past redistricting quantities have been considered. And so I just appreciate the dialogue and the ability to be able to pivot
and stay flexible and and consider all the options. So thank you so much. I don't need to rehash most of it. I agree with most of what everybody said. Those are my concerns that is you made a point earlier that you wanted to come into this with fresh eyes and not be biased about who'd been districted where before. And I think that is the right approach. If we were setting up sales territories in a business, that's how you'd want to do it. You couldn't say, okay, I've got friends here or friends there. Every time we step a little bit further from that, it messes up that future plan. I'm still sensitive to all these comments we've heard here,
and I think I'm leaning towards it's the right thing to do. But I'd like to hear from you and Brian and Pat and just kind of everybody. If we were to approve that alternate version, it looks like it takes a couple of schools up to very close to capacity in areas that are still growing. As we've pointed out, a lot of us may not be here by the time it happens again, but it's still our job to set the district up for as long term success as we can. Do you feel that if we were to do the alternate version, and I might as well ask now if we were to amend it with even
one more, are we still in a strong position for, I'll let you tell me how many years before we're all back here doing this again, because I think what every difficult story we've heard from the community right now, there's going to be another roomful of people with the same exact story in four or five years. So someone's going to have to do it at some point. Do we do it now or later? Everyone's going to really like me if I say later. But, what's your opinion on that? In the recommendation I gave where we've moved blocks five and six to the Sand
Creek's Fisher pattern, we're taking known enrollment today. We're seeing the impact of moving those students today, filling the seats, And we're kind of working off of a closest transportation, at least at the intermediate level. So that's what I like about it. What I see with the alternate is those units we're expecting Finch Creek probably to be about 80% built out in about three years, right? So in about three years, four years, we're trading that development today, pushing that into the Sand Creek Fishers feeder pattern.
So in about three or four years, I do expect we will probably see some enrollment declines in Geist, in Brooks School, some of those other elementaries that feed into a Fall Creek. And so although in that alternate option where we Fall Creek is highly utilized, I kind of see that as maybe a cap right now, right, until we start getting that other development project on the books. Once that starts coming, I think then we have to monitor and maybe make some decisions at that point.
And maybe at that point when it comes online and we say, hey, we still have a bunch of room at Sand Creek, maybe it's just a single move, again, before those units show up. So we're not impacting Hinge, we're not impacting Fall Creek and we're setting the precedent again for the newest homes, just putting them into a feeder pattern where they can fit. So I think the with the alternate option, that will give us some flexibility to at least look at some of those future developments and kind of set the precedent since we've already done it here.
So we're not reworking the book. And I think at least with the alternate option, it will give us maybe a little more flexibility to try and come up with solutions for some of those bigger developments as they come online as opposed to just straight feeding them into Fall Creek because if that happens, at that point, we'll probably be overcapacity. Okay. And I'd appreciate anybody from administration, too. And then also that other option, and I do want to point out that because we only have one speaker,
it represents more than that. So we're not trying to make decisions again for a 20,000 person district because there was one speaker, but it speaks to a point. So I would like to hear your opinion on it sounds like we pretty much have a motion on the floor right now to amend this further. So both sides of that. Can we handle it if we were to do that? Sure. I would say the amendment Ms. Thomas is proposing with, is it Geist Overlook? Woods And Geist, okay. So I'm trying to get all my division subdivisions. I think that's an established neighborhood. So I don't see big enrollment fluctuations over time.
So if the district is interested, I think that can be accommodated. And for the record, Ben, you are correct. We did hear from one speaker. But I personally have had a couple of e mails and people that have made comments. So it wasn't just a one off for me. In my recommendation, we had proposed moving it to the Fall Creek Elementary, intermediate, junior, high feeder pattern just based on road transportation, knowing that that is the closest school for those homes coming down 113, And then providing taking some students out of Thorpe so Thorpe could accommodate more students out of Southeastern and kind of balance those schools.
So that's why that was originally made. That recommendation was made. And it was made to move altogether, so we weren't splitting feeder patterns. I think if the community is interested in that and the board is okay with it, it can be accommodated. But it would just create another split feeder pattern for the district. We have a split feeder pattern at Harrison Parkway. We're going to in the proposed final recommendation, we'd have a three way split for Hoosier Road. We're going to have at least a two way split for Deer Creek and possibly
now a split feeder pattern for Fall Creek. Creek. I know there was sentiments early on trying to align feeder pattern with elementary, intermediate, junior high. So a lot of my recommendations try to follow that. But if the Board is okay with it and the community is interested in it, I think that change can be accommodated at the intermediate junior high school. And just to add to that real quick. Because I'm seeing so much of the change different And I feel, as Ms. Parkes Riese has said, it's closer to four to five years that we may have to do this.
That is why I feel like this is we're going to redo this again in five years that it might fix it again better when we add the high schools in as well. So adding this amendment today, I think, supports that and does not take HIJH over the top. I think it's the alternative is the best option we have at this point in time. I mean, we've heard from a demographer who says birth rates nationally and in Hamilton County have slowed down. We know there is the opportunity for subdivisions and homes to go in. But who's going to move into them and do they have any children?
We've seen a lot of our community turn into retirement communities, and they don't have kids who are coming to our schools. And we know that we're going to have to go up to Deer Creek Elementary and add on, and it has plenty of land to do that. So we can handle that for a while. But really, when you have a district that grew so fast and then put elementary schools almost every mile away and then aged out, it's going to cause you to have to make changes every five to six years. But I think this gives us the opportunity to do what the community has asked
us to do and at the same time, taking and putting some less pressure on some of our elementary schools that we currently have. And we've got some good construction going on at the Hitch right now, adding classrooms. We've got options to be able to look at, but we can't look into a crystal ball and say, My goodness, we're going to have all these kids. And what we tried to do is serve the students who we have in front of us today. And I think the alternative option does that. And can you also clarify too that we are doing the grandfathering and that we
do in our district, which I think every case is different, but we do have what's called special circumstances that if a family needs to apply for that to the district, we have a procedure that they can apply for special circumstances. If for some reason they're not here tonight in their district or their community and they have found themselves to be in a hardship situation or a difficult situation, they can there is a special circumstance. I know I had that and again, people who didn't hear it the first time, with my late husband passing away, I had to do a special circumstance recommendation,
and I was turned down by the Board. And I had to apply for it again. So I know there is a process and a procedure, but of course, that was twelve years ago. We still have that process in place. Thank you. That's all I want to clarify. So anybody who is affected, if they need to, they have that system in place. That is correct. Before we go further, and I don't know if we're getting close to the end of discussion, but when we are, can we get a clean motion if we want to make that change? Can you maybe state exactly what that would be? And we're going to take a motion on one of the plans first, pass that,
and then we will go on to an amendment, then amend it. So if we can does anyone else have any comments? So for clarity, Doctor. Albright, so we're making a motion. We don't pass it, but we make the motion to have a first and a second. And then in that discussion, we'll add the amendment, and then we will pass it. We will have a motion for whichever plan, correct, whoever wants to make the motion. Correct. We'll second it, we'll pass that. Then we'll go on Well, let's take the motion. Correct. And we'll get a motion and a second. Correct.
And then we would entertain an amendment. Correct. We would vote on the amendment. Correct. And if the amendment passes, it's added to it. And if it does not, then it goes back to the original. Correct. And then we vote on the original. Correct. That's what I was trying to point out. Okay. Thank you. I am ready for well, Sarah, did you have something to say? I was ready to make a motion. Yes. Okay. Whoever wants to make a motion, go ahead. I move to, approve the redistricting amended recommendation as presented. Meaning the alternative? The alternative. Okay.
Yes. I said amended, right? Because we're talking about That's okay. The alternative recommendation. I second the motion. Second. And I would like to make an amendment to the motion that we add Woods Of Geist Neighborhood to the Intermediate Woods Of Geist Overlook into the HIJH, just the intermediate. So intermediate junior high for HIJH for the Woods Of Geist. So that's Planning Unit 40. Okay. And keeping the elementary Fishers Elementary. Is there a second? Second. Okay. We will any comments before we vote on the amendment?
Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you all for really working with us. I just want to express the feedback that I have heard from people in the community for being able to have all of the communications with the neighborhoods, making it open. I don't know what more we could have done as a district, to be honest with you, but I think the sweat equity that you've put into this and the administration is greatly appreciated. Living in the district for thirty years, we experienced this with the exponential growth when there was only 30,000 people in the district and we run massive expansion. And I know it wasn't hard it wasn't easy then and it's not easy now.
And this it's not perfect, but it's as good as I think we're going to get it. And we're going to accommodate the growth as best we can. So I appreciate all the work that you all have done, and, thank you so much. Okay. I will now, call your names to take a vote. This is a vote only on the amendment. I vote yes for the amendment. Sarah Parks Rees? Yes. Patricia Schooley? Yes. Ben Orr? Yes. Dawn Lang? Yes. Tiffany Pascoe? Yes. And I'm a yes. Passes seven-zero. We will now go back and vote on the amendment original motion.
The alternative. Do we need another motion? Right. Yes. And we don't need another motion. Okay. Right. So we're now voting on the motion with the amendment. Correct. And I vote yes. Sarah Parks Reiss? Yes. Latricia Schooley? Yes. Van Orr? Yes. Dawn Lang? Yes. Tiffany Pascoe? Yes. And I'm a yes. Passes seven-zero. Thank you very much, Andrew. We appreciate all your hard work. This is I could not have done what you have done, so we appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you tremendously. To the administration team and Wolpert,
thank you. We will now move on to 5.01, approval of part time District Subsutta Ryan Taylor. Good evening, Board and my items aren't near as exciting. I have two individuals that we are seeking special personnel action on tonight in accordance with Indiana Code. So the first one is for part time substitute teachers. So I would ask for a motion to approve the first five zero one. Do I have a motion to approve this item as presented? Motion to approve. Go ahead, Tiffany.
Go ahead, Motion to approve Item S presented. Second. Any questions or comments? I'll now close discussion and call the question. Suzanne Thomas? Yes. Sarah Parks Ruiz? Yes. Leticia Schooley? Yes. Ben Orr? Yes. Don Lang? Yes. Tiffany Pascoe? Yes. I'm a yes, passes seven-zero. We'll move on to 5.02, approval of part time district substitute teacher. Yes. Similarly, I would ask for a motion to approve the part time substitute teacher as presented. Do I have a motion to approve this item as presented? Motion to approve 5.02
as presented. Second. Questions, comments? I will now call the questions. Suzanne Thomas? Yes. Sarah Pariseries? Yes. Patricia Schooley? Yes. Ben Orr? Yes. Dawn Lang? Yes. Tiffany Pascoe? Yes. And I'm a yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll move on to 5.03, a summer school presentation by Jason Urban. Doctor. Albright, Mr. Mapes, members of the Board, I'm in front of you for two presentations, one being new course proposals for 2026, 2027 and summer school proposal.
Slide has new course proposals first, so I'll start there. This is a continuation of my presentation and the last Board meeting. If you remember, really we can divide those, the rationale for the new courses into just four different topics. The bulk of the new courses coming forward, there's 20 new courses that complete CTE pathways. So most of those, we may have a principal's class, but we need a concentrator a and b and the capstones. We're just completing those so we can offer full pathways to our students.
Some courses are added so we can maximize accessibility to the new diploma. So things like, Introduction to Public Service allows us to complete the Enlistment Honor Seal. We're adding work based learning and part time jobs as a co op allows us to get those hours for those seals. Credential of value is something that will allow students to get a seal. So all those satisfy the new diploma. In addition to that, wanted to make the Board aware of some of the things that we are doing,
may not be new courses, but just to make the new diploma accessible to class of 2028, so current sophomores, rising juniors. As we said in the last meeting, we just feel like there's six honors diplomas that are accessible under the new diploma when there's only two under the current diploma. So we want to allow encourage those options to our students and to our families. And to do that, we've been very creative, the high schools in combining classes together to maximize opportunities for students to get those.
So that's part of the proposal as well. One change from what was presented to you last time, I talked a little bit about the junior high and the new accountability measures and having high school classes in the junior high factors into those accountability scores. And so we looked really hard at moving health down to the junior high to have an eighth grade class to go alongside computer foundation so there would be two high school classes at the junior high. And talking to, principals at both the high school and junior high, talking to teachers at the high school and the junior high,
really looking, you know, really dissecting it, it makes more sense to move PE one to the wellness classes that already exist in the junior high that wouldn't be as big a change for health. And the trade off to that too is kind of the one of our, one of our hesitations of moving health down to junior high is we really don't have that high school level mental health instruction, if we move health to the junior high. And that was a real value for the high school and I think for the community too. So what I'm proposing to you with new courses is approval,
all the courses that, I put in front of you before, and also moving PE-one within junior high eighth grade wellness as a high school course, moving from the high school to the junior high. So question for you. Other than our costs to hire the teacher, right, whether we hire them or repurpose them somewhere else, taking them, you're right. They're already on staff and we're having them teach some of these classes. Is there any additional cost that we would know of that would adding a bunch
of these? I mean, I'm all for, I get it. I'm just asking for on the record, is there any cost that we're not aware of that would come with this? With the move to the junior high? No. We're just adding a bunch of new classes. Yes. The CTE classes have Perkins funding that comes with them and that should be sufficient for equipment and things that comes with them. Okay. And then the other is you brought up the sophomores that would be able to go with the new pathway. Has there been any resistance or pushback that some who've already been in the high
school path of wanting to stay, are they at liberty to stay in that pathway or they have to do the new pathway? Yeah. I was at HSE last night. They had a great program for parents and sophomores to come in and learn about it, and, they did a great job presenting the the kind of the trade offs of the of the diplomas. So really a lot of questions. But those decisions, if a student wants to, hey, I want to stay with the old diploma, should be made in the counseling office, informed decision with the counselor with those post secondary goals in front of that counselor.
So if it aligns with the post secondary goals, but we want to make sure people are informed, they just don't hear things and make decisions based on that. We really want that decision to take place in the counseling office. Well, first of all, I appreciate that you guys had the information. That's fantastic. And then PE to junior high, are we will that mean is it I don't want to be the elephant in the room, but is that the obvious that we are now reducing our high school PE staff? And will they now some of them have the opportunity to move to junior highs? Or will we need to add classes in the junior high level?
We think we can accomplish the PE1 within the wellness class that already exists at the junior high. So we wouldn't need teachers coming down to the junior high to do that. And so at the high school, I think our physical education department is already going through an evolution already with the limit the only requirement of one PE. Already with the limit the only requirement of one PE class for this year is freshmen. And so they're already starting things like thinking about lifelong fitness and adapting some of those alternative PE credits for to make them more relevant. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Any other questions about new course approval? We're on 5.04. We'll go back to 5.03 for summer school. Correct. Yes. So this would be 5.04. Yes. All right. Do I have a motion to approve this item as presented? Motion to approve the new course proposal as presented. Second. I'll now call the question. Suzanne Thomas? Yes. Sarah Parks Reiss? Yes. Patricia Scholey? Yes. Ben Orr? Yes. Dawn Lang? Yes. Tiffany Pascoe? Yes. And I'm a yes, passes seven-zero. We'll now go back to 5.03,
summer school. If you remember last year, we took a look at summer school offerings as well and talked about, do we need to reduce some of the things that we're doing? Do we need to increase fees? Do we not need to pay for as many classes? Because there is a cost associated with that. So if we bring the slides up, next slide, Jeff. We dug into this. Tim really helped out with this in just looking at the total cost of the high school summer school programs as we run a live PE session at both high schools in the summer.
Last year, we decided to increase the fee for that class $20 so it moved from $160 to $180 Despite that increase in fee, if you kind of scroll up so you can see the bottom there, you'll see that we still lost $33,000 on offering that summer school opportunity to students. In addition, we talked about limiting the number of classes that we would pay for out of CIESC. The District pays for one of those classes this last year.
That was kind of a compromise we made last year. And looking at that and looking at our potential reimbursement from the state, despite trying to reduce that, it cost the District $272,000 to do that, over $272,000 So taking that those financial considerations into account, what I'm proposing for you, and if you can go to the next slide, to consider is that, this summer we make some adjustments to the live high school PE course. And that adjustment would be to significantly increase the cost of student $40 more.
And so that would take it from $180 per student to $220 dollars Just a comparison to what parent families are projected to pay for IOA classes next year would be $260 per course, so it would still be a little bit less than what the online IOA course would be. We would also increase teacher to student ratios, very similar to what we do in the normal school year, which is 40 to one, and raise those. We didn't run, that high a ratio this summer. And then we would also, instead of doing two separate sites for summer PE,
combine them to one site, so HSE students, Fisher students, one site. That would eliminate nursing costs and I think we could run it for one more year, We choose to do so and offer that. For the CIESC courses, with that significant cost to the district, I think the proposal would be to only pay for those courses that are new courses required under the new diploma. Again, to kind of understand that we may be asking, you know, students from the class of 2028 to take those on or students to maybe fit
those into their schedule. And so computer foundations, personal financial responsibility, preparing for college careers, the three new required classes for the diploma, as a district pay for only those classes and all other classes would be student pay. And as far as our iRead summer program, there would be no change. It would be the same thing that we did this summer. Any questions? I would love to know. I thought I was hoping to see one more slide up with what the effects would be on that, the money. If we implement these,
how close to operating in the black does it get us? Yes. It's hard to predict how many will sign up for the three courses because those are new. So I just have no way to predict how many will sign up for that. So that's hard to estimate that cost, significantly less though than what we're paying now. And as far as the high school PE, I think we should be very close to cost neutral on that. Is there one more slide under there that you can slide that up? No, there's not. No. And I get what you said because it's impossible to estimate until we know who
wants to take the classes. But in theory, it should be less, however you slice it. So Yes, significantly less. And you said running summer PE for one more year because we'll be moving into eighth grade and it will no longer be necessary, right? Correct. Okay. This will be the last summer for that. Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, do I have a motion to approve this item as presented? I move to approve this item as presented. Second. I'll now call the questions. Suzanne Thomas? Yes. Sarah Parks Reiss?
Yes. Leticia Scholey? Yes. Ben Orr? Yes. Don Lang? Yes. Tiffany Pascoe? Yes. And I'm a yes, pass the seven-zero. Thank you very much. We will now move on to 5.06, policy second reading. Doctor. Kegley? Thank you. Good evening, Board. This evening, we're revisiting policies from November. Both of these, or these suggested changes this evening are have gone through Policy Committee last week. As a reminder, we are merging, K-twelve naming of grounds and facilities through gifts and sponsorships
with K-two point I'm sorry. We're moving k two point zero zero gifts donations to schools into k twelve naming of grounds and facilities through gifts and sponsorships. So what's reflected in, the new k twelve, under acceptance of gifts and donations is language from k two point zero zero. And then you can see, the strikethroughs and rewording of language that was already there. Nothing else from that policy was, eliminated. It was just reworded, in a different fashion.
And then in the other we are moving the other recommendation is to move Emerge K 4.02, which is public concerns, complaints about instructional resources into K4.00, which is public concerns and complaints. The second paragraph that begins with when a concern involves instructional materials is the language from the policy that we're merging into this one. And then we just did some language cleanup with the rest of this policy. So I'm seeking, your approval of those changes this evening. Any questions or comments?
Any comments from Committee? No, none. It's pretty straightforward. Do I have a motion to approve this item as presented? Motion to approve, Kate I must say, motion to approve as presented. How about that? I'll take it. Tiffany second. Thank you. I'll now call the close the comments and call the question. Suzanne Thomas? Yes. Sarah Parks Reis? Yes. Patricia Schooley? Yes. Ben Orr? Yes. Dawn Lang? Yes. Tiffany Pascoe? Yes. And Amy, yes. Thank you very much. We will now move on to 6.01,
policy first reading. Thank you. This evening, we have a first read to modify our current policy, 3.02.01, which deals with teacher appreciation grants. This year, the state legislature, did an overhaul of the teacher appreciation grants. And, really, all of the language that we had previously, is no longer applicable. So the information that you have in this policy in this new policy, the proposed language comes straight from direction from the IDOE, which came down from the state legislature. They are I'll just highlight some of the key points.
We are, can only identify no more than 20% of our certified teachers as eligible grant recipients. There are three tiers that they very clearly delineate what qualifies you for the tiers. Those amounts are, dollars 3,500, dollars 5,000, and 7,500. So the the proposals, in that language is is substantial increase over what we've done previously in terms of tag. We have already, started this process with the teachers who are interested in applying,
and, we've already been told by the DOE what our allotment would be, should teachers wish to apply and take advantage of this opportunity. But all of this language that you see is straight from the DOE, in guidance from the state legislature. Because we will not have policy committee in January due to reorganization, I'll be back to do second read, with you all in person and we will not have policy. So if there if you have questions either now or prepared for questions at when we go to take action,
just know that we won't have policy in the middle of that. I do have a couple. Sure. One, just as a blunt question. Yes. Since this is changing, has it been shared with our Teachers Association yet? And our do we have to do it? I mean, do we have to I can see how if we've got 1,800 teachers or 1,500 or whatever that number is, do they in order to get the funds, do they have to apply? So we And so is that a competition thing? That's what I'm concerned with. Yes. So,
I'll back up a couple steps. The the state asked for districts to that were interested to apply to get the money to do so, which was really a simple, yes. We'd like to participate. We had to go through a certification process to determine what our 20% of teachers is for our district. For us, that's two thirty six teachers. So that's the max number of teachers that could receive Is that all grades, two thirty six K through 12? Correct. We, after consulting with other districts that were also taking advantage of this and looking at
options available to us about how do we determine who would receive these funds if they indicated that they were interested, we decided to put together an application. And that application is, really delineates the three tiers of of support here and what's required in each tier. One of the things, for example, in tier one is that you have to show significant, academic outcomes from from students that you taught last year. K.
So teachers would have to have data to prove that. Okay. And then each tier kinda builds upon itself. And so if you're a tier three, you have to do tier one plus other things. Okay. But that's also why the the grant money is delineated and it increases as you go up in a tier. And and what happens when we have, like, more than two thirty six that they just don't qualify. Asked. Okay. For even more or or however many apply, we are assembling a committee of central office and building level leaders to review applications.
We have applications out to teachers already. They have until January 7 to submit an application back to us, and it's all digital, and then they upload their documentation there. And then the committee, which I'll lead, will review all of the people that that applied and determine, which people will receive those funds. We are prioritizing this year, special ed teachers, teachers of English language learners, and our teachers of the year from last year.
That does not mean that any that if you're not one in that group, that you can't apply. All teachers are welcome to apply. But we are we are prefer we are providing some preference to those folks if they choose to apply, because, quite frankly, one of the goals of TAG is to be able to attract and retain teaching staff, and we know that those are very difficult positions for us to fill. Okay. So that's that doesn't mean that that will always be the case from year after
year, but that's our approach this school year. So you can still be part of it and be just as credible as someone else and still not get funds? Do we have like an ulterior something or other where all the teachers that didn't get a pizza party or something? I don't know. I'm just making something up that still supports those teachers? I have to check the pizza party budget, but we don't have an alternate plan for those that don't receive funds. Okay. The design the HSEF is outside of this totally independent. They do their GrandPatrol totally separately,
right? So everyone's still eligible for that. This is an independent stipend from the state. Okay. And we have clear expectations of how that money is to be spent and how it can't be spent. Okay. And it is considered a one time stipend to the teachers that receive the stipend. And so I'll just progress through the rest of the timeline for you all. We have until January 30 as a district to say these are the teachers that we believe have met the criteria. Sometime between January 30 and April 15,
the state will provide us with the funds. They've right now, they've earmarked the funds for HSE, but we don't have those funds. They'll say, okay. Based on who you sent us, we're gonna award you this amount of money. And then we have sixty days from the time we receive that money to distribute that to the individual teachers. Okay. So I just want to give a little context to, people that maybe didn't open the attachment, that it used to be that the teacher appreciation grants went to all the teachers
in the district that were highly effective or effective on their last evaluation. And so it went to pretty much all of the teachers, right? And then And we I'm sorry to interrupt you. We received funding, that we then supplemented as a district to the tune of a little over $300,000 Okay. And so you supplemented that too? Correct. And so that was spread out amongst all the teachers. And so I think it's reasonable that HSE opted in to participate.
I think, I can understand wanting to accept any money that the state is offering, in a time like now. I don't think changing our policy means that HSE is saying we agree with what the state legislator did or didn't do. It's just going with what they've done, right? And we have to abide by their, by what they've done. And rather than not give our teachers anything, we want to offer them any opportunity that we can. So even if it's only 20% of our teachers,
I think that's what we have to work with and that's what we have to work with. So I just want to say out loud, the way each one of us individually says we agree or we don't agree with what the legislator is doing is by taking ourselves to the ballot box next fall and voting for the candidates for state legislator that align with our beliefs. So, for clarity, you're saying that locally, this is we didn't do this. This is the states that changed it, and we are changing our policy to match the state.
No different than us adapting a policy on suspension or expulsion if the state legislature altered what we could do or couldn't do. We are adjusting this policy to be in alignment with what happened at the state level. So quick question, and again, naivete. I apologize. But let's say the lump sum money that came in that's supposed to go to 20% of our thing is $300,000 or something. Can't we choose as a district to just say, Thank you for that. We're going to give it to everybody? Nope. Okay. Because it says in the state statute,
it can only be 20%. We can't even give the you can only give at the tiered amounts. Okay. So our number is $2.36. Our allotment was a little over $768,000 Okay. We can't even give all two thirty six a $3,500 stipend, which is the lowest tier because there's not enough funds to do that. I understand. Okay. So we have to work within the bounds of the 20% and the allotted funds. Okay. All right.
Thank you for answering that. I appreciate it. Anyone else? All right. Thank you, Doctor. Kinkley. We'll move on to 7.01, Superintendent Report. Thank you. Just kind of hot off the press today, the statewide We the People competition took place downtown. And, Fall Creek Junior High got third place statewide. Fishers High School was third place statewide. Fisher's Junior High is the junior high state champion. And Hamilton Southeastern High School is the statewide We the People champion.
I'd like to thank all of our students and teachers in the performing arts who've been putting on entertainment for our community here the last four to five weeks and some more performances to continue. It's hard to believe the first semester is going to end at, next Friday. This has been just like a whirlwind as we started the school year and all the work that's got done. I know we've already thanked them, but Wolpert, I cannot say enough good things about the company and how they led us through the redistricting process. Never had any experience with them before, and they're an outstanding company and I think really met our needs.
The next week and a half, please watch the weather. As we know, we've got some snow and really cold temperatures coming in. And let's make certain that kids got coats and got boots. And listen and look at your parents who are app because we'll probably be using it, Thursday evening and Friday morning as we're supposed to get to two to five inches of snow. But I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, and we'll come back and have another great half of twenty twenty five-twenty twenty six school year. We'll now move on to 8.01
Board Member Committee Reports. We'll start with Suzanne. Really quick to speak on H. I. Or excuse me, the foundation. Just a reminder that, for the community, don't forget to go to Ticketmaster for our February 20 legacy event. We are featuring, Blues Traveler and Gin Blossom, so you have to go to Ticketmaster to get your tickets. February 20, that's still open. Also, HSEF is pleased to, again, offer over 40 community scholarships for the class of twenty twenty six. So if you've got kiddos that are graduating,
please, please go online. The applications are due no later than March 5. Again, March 5. Go to, the foundation website, and you can pull up all those applications. And you can apply for more than one. Also, we had a great Giving Tuesday, this past Tuesday, and thank you to everybody who participated and donated to our school district. Keep in mind, again, our foundation supports our school district. It goes to our scholarships for our students and to our grants for our teachers. Our teachers can apply throughout the year for phenomenal grants that are educational focused to
support their classrooms and support our teachers. And you can go to the Foundation website at any time. It doesn't have to be a fundraiser, and it doesn't have to be an event. And you can donate to support, HSE schools. And then also what else? Last, reminder of the Foundation's, grant application process for our staff, which is one right now, they have through midnight, December 18. Again, our staff, please, please go in and apply. You have until December 18. And I will tell you, Ms. Parks Reese and myself serve on the Foundation Committee, and it is such a pleasure to deliver these grants to these teachers.
It is it's exciting to see happen, and I can't say enough how appreciative I am to the Foundation. So happy holidays to all those people that celebrate all the different holidays. I'd like to say Merry Christmas to everyone and Happy New Year and hope you have a fabulous holiday winter break. And we'll see you guys in 2026. And then one last thing, thank you to Wolpert and Mr. Rausch and his team. They did a phenomenal job. And to the Board, thank you for your support and all that work. Thank you. No report. Patricia? Doctor. Kegley did our report,
and there's no policy committee meeting in January. Ben? Last facility committee notes are online, and we were pleased to see everything is on schedule and on budget, and we're looking forward to Fishers Elementary opening. So excited for that, fully. And other than that, emphasize Mr. Mape's comment too, that the kids may want to consider wearing a coat and that slides and socks may not be the best choice right now. I'm speaking mostly to my own son, so your superintendent has told you to wear a coat. Thank you very much and Merry Christmas to everybody.
I think Latricia already touched on this with policy, no meeting in January. There's also no finance committee meeting in January as well. So with the new slate of Board, that will be determined at that point. Tiffany? Just again want to say thank you to Brian Rausch and Andrew Bishop for being so receptive and empathetic to the equity and stability throughout the district redistricting process. Thank you also to the fellow board members for putting away differences and doing what's right for our students and families. And again, thank you to Jeff Harrison for a seamless attendance via IT.
We're always on top of it. So thank you. And thank you for attending our meeting. Merry Christmas to everyone and have a great break from school. We'll reconvene in 2026. Meeting is adjourned.