You opened schools in the Far NE and charter schools in the last ten years. If you didn’t open so many new schools, you wouldn’t be in the current situation, where there are too many schools given declining enrollment.

You announced two years ago that Palmer would close. Even though you didn’t do it then, you still created a stigma around the school so that more families in our neighborhood choiced out since they were worried that the school would close. That has set a vicious cycle in which enrollments declines further and good teachers leave.

You created school choice, which draws students away from smaller schools like Palmer that do not have the resources to market their schools.

You have drawn enrollment zones in a way that hurts Palmer and not put enrollment caps on overenrolled schools that are close by, like Park Hill Elementary.

How and when was the enrollment total communicated in the toolkit (Palmer =150) determined? And why does it not include ECE if those classes take up space in the building?

What is the maximum number of students that Palmer could hold?

How was the utilization rate for Palmer (43% determined)? Does it consider classroom space only?

What is the plan for the school's Model 1 ECE classroom? Would it be moving to another school in the new enrollment zone?

We have exceeded all expectations since 2 years ago. Unfortunately the data that was presented last night was inaccurate. All of our numbers have gone up - please see data below: Test scores - Governor's Distinguished award 2 years in a row Enrollment - Data presented - K-5 said 150 students ACTUAL: 153 students ECE - data presented said - 41 students Actual: 53 students We actually had to turn down 2 1st grade students due to capacity. With many families that choiced in (we are trying to getting an accurate number on this) Performance: GREEN Utilization: data presented: 43% Actual: 54% (they removed ECE number to make the utilization look lower) ECE are actual bodies!

Part of the plan is to create a new enrollment zone that covers Steck, Carson, Teller, Montclair, and Lowry. Assuming this enrollment zone functions the same as others in Denver and that I understand the district's description of these zones, this means that incoming students would no longer be guaranteed a spot in their neighborhood school, but rather would simply be guaranteed a spot in ONE of these five schools. In these zones, parents are required to complete a SchoolChoice application, but without a guarantee of a spot in your neighborhood school, just in one of these five schools.

Are you able to provide a rationale for this? The slide deck does not seem to say anything about why this change is being proposed or what the supposed benefits would be? I mean as opposed to leaving each school with an individual boundary (notwithstanding that of course the individual boundaries would change if Palmer is actually closed).

What about concerns related to transportation?

What will the money that is gained by closing the school be used for? In the proposal it states to subsidize small schools - doesn’t the proposal close those schools? Will any of the money be used to increase per student funding? It doesn’t matter if the schools are full - the per student funding amount isn’t enough. The closure of Palmer is a bandaid on a much bigger issue.

Along the funding topic - right now Palmer operates 100% on the funding that they are given. Our PTA doesn’t cover the cost of paras or specials - yet the schools (in our cluster) that are full have to have their PTAs cover those costs. We are model of how to make it work.

I have a number of questions around transportation. There was conflicting information in the slideshow. On one slide it said that all students would be provided transportation to the school they choose within the cluster. On a later slide it states the current policies would be in place which means you can only have a bus if you are farther than a mile. Which is accurate? Also if there are hazardous roads to cross how will students cross those if they do not have reliable transportation and are within a mile of the school. In addition there is a bus driver shortage - how will the increase in demand for drivers be addressed?

In the cluster that Palmer is in there are only 2 schools with any space. How will we be assured that siblings will be at the same school? Drop offs will be difficult with the distance that the two open schools are from our house but to add in the potential of 2 drop offs I am even more concerned.

What is the plan for the current staff and administration at Palmer? They won’t even get to come to the designated public comment time for them because it is in the middle of the day when they are teaching. How does that provide them a voice in this decision that greatly affects them? Their jobs are being taken from them!

The data in the presentation did not give an accurate picture of the current status of Palmer. Right now there are 154 K-5 students and 53 ECE students. Our school can hold up to a total of 350 students. This would mean that there is room for 143 more students and that we are at 54% utilization of the building. The presentation said we have room for an additional 202 and that we are at 43% utilization. It doesn’t make sense to remove ECE completely from the picture - they are students in the building even if they are funded differently. So the correct number is that we have room for 144 more students and we are at 54% utilization of the building.

Why were there not other clusters considered? For example Cluster 6 and 10 have multiple schools and have a cluster utilization rate that are lower than our cluster.. Cluster 6 is at 45% and Cluster 10 is at 56% and our cluster is at a 72% utilization. This shows how many families we have in our neighborhood. And that number is growing. I just sold my house to a family who was moving into our neighborhood for Palmer. I have multiple friends in our neighborhood that are currently trying to get pregnant and plan to send their kids to Palmer because of the fact it is a small school. The number of families is growing in this neighborhood which I understand is different than other neighborhoods in Denver. You need to look at the numbers in these specific neighborhoods.

The number of families choosing out was looked at - why are we not looking at the number of families who choiced into the schools? In fact we have a number of families who chose Palmer over Lowry - now their choice is being taken away.

In the presentation it states that schools within a cluster are all schools within 3 miles or less than each other. Steck and Lowry are 3.2 miles apart. I do not understand how Lowry is considered within our cluster?

Also what is happening to ECE? We are the only school in the area with ECE 3 program. Where will ECE be placed as there is not room at any of the surrounding schools for ECE?

Palmer is a high performing school with incredible diversity. Why are neighbor schools like Carsen and Teller allowed to OVER enroll, affecting Palmer’s enrollment numbers? Has the district considered capping these schools, routing students back to Palmer?

Speaking of, the superintendent identified Carsen and Teller as two options in our “enrollment zone,” should Palmer close. These two schools are over-enrolled…how would that work? Would Palmer families get priority over current Carsen and Teller students? Or does this actually mean that our choices are between Steck, Montclair, Lowry, and Denver Green? Two of these options are miles from our home.

Two years ago, when I attended a listening session for Palmer, the community brainstormed SO many potential solutions. For example, I remember one woman suggesting that a small kick back lands at the neighborhood school when a family decides to choice into another school. I’m curious what happened with all of this rich conversation and these suggestions. Why are we skipping from 100 to zero?

Two years ago, I remember the district stating that it has to spend $150,000 of its money to keep Palmer afloat. This year/this time around, I did not see an updated number. Is there an updated number? It’s my understanding that Palmer’s enrollment has improved year on year in the past few years.

Where is all of the state’s pot money?! Wasn’t this supposed to fund schools? That’s why I supported the measure. I understand that the state is allowed to shift money into different buckets, but perhaps the board should be fighting the state for access to more dollars vs trying to close schools.

Has the board considered all of the new development in this region of Denver? There are apartments being built on Hale around Albion/Birch. Where will kids in those buildings go to school? I can’t even count how many single family ranch homes have been torn down in the last few years to be replaced with enormous townhomes (at least two per lot). Families are moving into the neighborhood.

Has the board considered mixed use of the buildings? Could the board help navigate rental agreements (etc) to help schools increase their funding?

Can you please clarify why Palmer boundary residents will have proximity choice to Teller, Montclair or Carson, but not Steck? Steck is closer than Carson, Teller is over 100% capacity, Steck is at 87%.

As I'm looking at the data, I don't understand why ALL of Palmer isn't just absorbed by the nearest school with capacity? Why wouldn't all 150 just be moved to Montclair since it's closest and has more than enough capacity? Instead of packing Carson and Steck? It seems like the building utilization would be more important for schools like Montclair and Lowry who have so many open spots?

The reasoning provided is frustrating as a long-term family member of Palmer. They mention only having 1 kindergarten class without acknowledging how DPS sabotaged Palmer’s enrollment by floating the idea of closure last year. I know several families that decided to avoid the risk and pre-emptively choiced out of the school, who knows how many others didn’t even consider Palmer because of that risk. Also, the choice numbers showing how many kiddos are “choicing" out feel like another proof of that self-fulfilling prophecy that DPS created for Palmer. If I’m reading the numbers correctly Palmer has directly lost almost 90 students through increased choice-out (132 -> 180 for the 23/24 year) and decrease in choice-in (82 -> 47 for the 23/24 year) which I believe is almost exclusively driven by DPS’s actions. No other school in our area has seen this sudden/drastic change in school choice changes and no other school has been threatened with closing.

The financial impact of Palmer specifically isn’t discussed. I would like to ask that you personally understand how much DPS is “saving” by closing Palmer versus how much additional transportation/etc. costs this closure is adding. Does it really make financial sense to be closing Palmer?

The proposed list of priority schools is silly. I am referencing pages 58, 59 and 60 from the linked presentation above. Notice how two of the schools in our proposed enrollment boundary don’t even show up on the map above (Lowry and DGS Southeast). Next, DPS is simply lying about school choice by implying there is a choice at all. On slide 59 they list Carson, Teller and Montclair as priority schools. But on slide 58, Carson and Teller are already OVER capacity, so how much of a choice is that really? Will DPS guarantee my kiddo and his friends a spot at their first choice or did they simply list two other schools knowing that Montclair is the only option to avoid looking bad? Also my older kiddo goes to Hill (so I’m aware of the challenges of biking as we’ve biked a few times but decided crossing 8th and 6th is too much) so it’s striking to me that Steck isn’t on the list of “high priority spots.”

Why is Lowry included in the NNE/SE 1 cluster since it is 3.2 miles from Steck and the cluster composition rules (slide 19) state that schools should be no more than 3 miles from one another? If this is calculated using point-to-point distance and not travel distance, why is DGS SE not included in the cluster, as it also meets the criteria for cluster inclusion if it is point-to-point distance? Excluding Lowry brings cluster building utilization to 77.2% while keeping the current cluster and adding in DGS SE brings cluster building utilization to 76%, both of which are over the 75% threshold for a cluster to be considered for closures (again, slide 19).

Why are Colfax (therefore excluding Park Hill from the cluster) and Colorado (thus excluding Teller) exceptions to the dangerous roads assessment but Monaco Parkway and Quebec Street are not (which would exclude Montclair and Lowry)? What went into the decision to grant exceptions for Colfax and Colorado but not Monaco and Quebec? Where can we find the list of DPS-designated dangerous roads and the criteria the district uses to designate a road as such?

If Carson is at greater than 100% capacity, what is the true Functional Capacity (FC) for Carson and why was the difference between Carson's current enrollment and the FC not subtracted from the denominator in calculating the cluster utilization rate?

Where can we find the list and methodology for how capacity is calculated for each school?

We have been told that Palmer's FC is 247 students. In the slides presented by the superintendent, Palmer's enrollment plus additional space (capacity minus enrollment) is 252. Where are these 5 extra seats coming from? Related to the previous question, where can we find the FC for every DPS school so we can ensure that additional mistakes were not made in the presentation from the superintendent.

How was ECE4 counted in Teller's capacity calculation, if at all? If ECE was not included in this calculation, where are the ECE4 classes held such that Teller can be listed at >100% capacity and still house a full-day ECE4 program?

What was Palmer's choice in/out ratio prior to the AY 2021/22 announcement of potential school closures?

In order to produce a most similar comparison analysis, what is the choice in/out ratio at other DPS schools that have two consecutive years of 80%+ points earned with the Colorado Department of Education like Palmer? Is there evidence that, absent signals from the superintendent in AY 2021/22 about the potential closure of Palmer, the choice in/out ratio would be higher at Palmer? If not, is there contradictory evidence that shows that there is a lack of correlation between high performance at a school and choice in/out ratios?

Given that it sounds like a certain number of seats will be "held" at schools in the zone to account for mid-year arrivals, what is the expected number of available seats in 1st through 5th grade at Montclair, Teller, and Carson in AY 2025/26, given historic patterns of attrition?

Why were Palmer boundary students given proximity/boundary priority to Montclair, Teller, and Carson but not to Steck?

How was the recent re-zoning of the Hale neighborhood for ADUs incorporated into projections for school-age children in the Palmer boundary? If it was not, why was it not considered? Was the new construction of large apartment buildings in the Palmer boundary considered and, if not, why not?

The Thrive powerpoint states that "Choice process through zone affords strong access to surrounding well performing schools" (slide 59). How is DPS defining "well performing schools"? What aspects of the choice process affords this "strong access"?

I have heard conflicting information about the prioritization levels for school choice. What is the order of prioritization for: continuing choiced in students (1), continuing boundary students (2), proximity/boundary choice (3), closing school choice (4), sibling choice (5), and enrollment zone (6) priority at Teller, Carson, and Montclair? What about at Steck, Lowry, and DGS SE? For incoming kindergarteners at Teller, Carson, and Montclair, will siblings have priority over incoming Palmer kindergarteners who would now be considered to have both proximity/boundary choice and closing school choice priority? Are there other priority levels that are missing from this list that need to be considered? In other words, in what order will classroom seats be filled next year within the enrollment zone and, in particular, at Teller, Carson, and Montclair, as well as Steck, Lowry, and DGS SE?

Will Palmer boundary residents maintain proximity/boundary choice priority at Montclair, Teller, and Carson for the foreseeable future? How long should families plan on having proximity/boundary choice priority at these three schools? As a parent of 2 year old twins as well as our 5 year old Palmer student, this is information that is vital to our SchoolChoice application, should Palmer be forced to close. What recourse do families have if the Board or superintendent redraw boundaries and/or removes proximity/boundary choice priority to these three schools?

Will Palmer boundary residents maintain proximity/boundary choice priority at Montclair, Teller, and Carson for the foreseeable future? How long should families plan on having proximity/boundary choice priority at these three schools? As a parent of 2 year old twins as well as our 5 year old Palmer student, this is information that is vital to our SchoolChoice application, should Palmer be forced to close. What recourse do families have if the Board or superintendent redraw boundaries and/or removes proximity/boundary choice priority to these three schools?