January 22, 2026, Academic and Community Excellence (ACE) Meeting - Elementary School Boundary Chang (2026-01-22)

Meeting Notes: New Hogan-Spring Glen Park Potential Boundary Changes Committee Schultz Center-Thursday, January 22, 2026 Board member Anthony Ricardo and Cindy Pearson were also in attendance. District Staff: Corey Wright, Jim Culbert, Laura Bowes, Ashley Barr, Christina Gazdick, Tracie Abrahan, Stephanie Stripling-Mitchell, Edith Kath, and assigned school principals Boundary Changes Review Committee Members: Stakeholder Group Member Name School Civic Organization Pastor Kevin Jolly Spring Park ES Civic Organization Meg Folds Spring Park ES Local Community Member Lynn Corely Spring Park ES Local Community Member Ted Corely Spring Park ES Supporting Organization Chelsea Fout Spring Park ES Parent Karla Harper Spring Park ES Teacher Emily Gideon Spring Park ES IB Coordinator Charita Penny Spring Park ES Student Arden Walker Spring Park ES Teacher Nancy Meehan Englewood ES Parent Sabrina Graham Englewood ES Supporting Organization Tiffany Guthrie Englewood ES Supporting Organization Jerri McInturff Englewood ES Civic Organization Hector Diaz Englewood ES Teacher Suzanne Kane Love Grove Teacher Jennifer Stenton Love Grove Teacher Lenwood Bruce Teacher Community Member Scott Lyncker Love Grove Community Member Brian Jones Love Grove SAC Chair/Staff Adam Belay Twin Lakes ES PTA President Joe Quinn Twin Lakes ES Teacher Leslie Bolante Southside Estates ES Parent Patricia Davenport-Jacobs Hendricks Avenue ES Parent Tori Race Hendricks Avenue ES Parent Katy Turpin Hendricks Avenue ES

Tracie Abraham gave an opening greeting. New Hogan-Spring Glen Park Potential Boundary Changes Committee meeting was called to order at 6:01 pm at Schultz Center. Twenty-five (25) working group members were present; therefore, a quorum for the meeting was confirmed. Tracie Abraham introduced Ashley Barr to share the community feedback on the Attendance Boundary and Consolidations Scenarios from the survey as requested. The working group posed questions about the clarity of maps, and responses. Ms. Barr suggested reviewing the data and providing answers prior to the end of the meeting. Ms. Abraham indicated that the survey provided two scenarios. Feedback should determine if the district should focus on changing the boundaries for the four core schools (Spring Park, Hogan-Spring Glen, Love Grove, and Englewood ES) or the twelve schools (8 adjacent boundaries). Ms. Abraham presented the current boundaries for the core schools as well as boundaries with respect to surrounding schools. She then shared proposed options for the potential boundary changes. Ms. Barr returned to share additional results of each scenario in the survey. Scenario 1- 44.82% strongly agreed or agreed. Scenario 2-51.78strongly agreed or agreed. She also noted that most of the responses provided were from parents from Hendricks ES. She also stated the purpose of the survey was to determine if other schools should be engaged. Public comments were called for with no one requesting to speak. The working group members shared thoughts about the survey results. A decision was made the data from the survey should not be used due to skewed data, lack of clarity, and the responses provided were by parents of a school that is not directly affected. A motion was not moved as the survey remains open. The working group continued with robust discussion, reviewing Option 1(Boundary dividers: Beach Blvd & University Blvd). The Chair requested a motion from the working group to exclude Option 1. The motion was seconded. Motion passed with twenty-three (23) in favor and two abstained. No further discussion was held related to Option 1. The working group moved forward with discussion and review of Option 2 (Boundary dividers: Emerson St, Beach Blvd & Ryar Rd) and Option 3 (Boundary dividers : current Englewood boundary, Beach Blvd & Ryar Rd). After a discussion, the Chair requested a

motion from the working group to eliminate Option 2. A second motion was made. Further discussion was held prior to the vote, and the vote was rescinded to await additional information regarding student safety (walkability and crossing guard assignments) The working group was unable to decide on an option for recommendation to the Superintendent and will meet again next week to continue the discussion. The working group requested the following bring-backs: • The number of School Choice students included in the utilization number. • Maps using technology to show overlap to help identify streets included int the potential boundary changes. • Implications for transportation (i.e., identify the 1.5-miles for bus riders, bus maps, crossing locations. etc.) • School profiles for the schools. Next meeting Boundary Distribution Review Committee will be held at Schultz Center on Thursday, January 29, 2026, beginning at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m.