Proposed changes in junior high boundaries prompted an emotional outcry from many parents Tuesday as the Davis School Board looked for ways to cope with crowded schools.
A study committee presented its report to the board with boundary-change recommendations that will affect more than 1,200 students.The district is building a fifth junior high, which will ease some crowding, but there is so much residential development on line that schools still will have substantial populations.
The committee proposed that:
- North Layton Junior High boundaries stay the same, leaving it with 1,358 students. An addition is being built onto the school.
- Central Davis Junior High transfer about 500 students to the new junior high, leaving its population at 1,355 students.
- Kaysville Junior High transfer 500 students to the new junior high but receive 237 students from Farmington Junior High. Kaysville's student body then would number 1,085.
- Farmington Junior High handle an enrollment of 1,023 students.
- The new junior high handle approximately 1,000 students.
A key dispute centered around the fate of students living in the Vae View subdivision. They attend North Layton Junior High and then are divided up, with about 19 percent (200-300 students) going to Layton High School and the rest to Northridge High School.
Many parents are unhappy because they believe the smaller group gets lost in the crowd, gets separated from friends and is overlooked when it comes to such things as athletic or music group activities. They also worry that these students are forced to make stressful adjustments during crucial teenage years.
Dave Thomas suggested that all Vae View students go to Central Davis Junior High and then to Layton High - a recommendation that drew cheers and applause. He said this would provide continuity throughout a student's junior high and high school experience.
However, committee co-chairman Colleen Watt, who is a Vae View resident, said Central Davis Junior High can't handle 200-300 new students without going over capacity.
She also noted that most of the new residential development is in the Central Davis area, which means that school will be getting increased enrollments in the future from 17 new subdivisions.
Watt expressed dismay that an open enrollment policy can't be adopted for individual students who want to attend a particular school, since this would help many families. She said the state recently changed the way schools are designated as open-enrollment facilities by lowering the allowed number of students per classroom. With so many Davis students, she said, the district would never meet the state standard.
An undercurrent of resentment ran throughout the boundary discussion, focusing on the perception that the prosperous east side of Layton was being treated well while the less-affluent west side was "getting dumped on," as one woman put it.
Some people seemed fed up with all the boundary changes the district has undergone at all levels. If this proposal is adopted, it will be the 46th boundary change in five years.
Many apparently still were unhappy about high school boundary changes made three years ago.
At one point, School Board President Louenda Downs remarked that such things are hard to adjust to but added, "I've found that those over 30 have more problems with it than those under 15" - which drew groans from the audience.
"How would you like to go to high school and have one friend?" a woman shouted back.
Downs and other school board members denied that socio-economic factors were at issue and said their only concern was equalizing the numbers of students in each school, with an eye toward making the best decision with less- than-perfect options.
"The kids adapt, but we know it's hard," Downs said, adding that school board members also are parents with youngsters in the Davis schools.
The public was invited to send additional comments to School Superintendent Richard E. Kendell (45 E. State St., Farmington, UT 84025).
District staffers will examine the proposed changes and the school board will make a final decision at its Jan. 18 meeting.