The silent part, out loud
The analysis highlights two serious risks for our children and families:
Everyone moves into the current Bear Creek building, with its open-plan layout. If today’s K–4 students return and the incoming kindergarten matches this year’s, the calculation gives:
490 children for 492 places.
Just two places to spare.
The BVSD proposal projects 392–445 students, 45–98 fewer than the benchmark.
The projections and proposed placement rules suggest that current Mesa open-enrollment students could lose their places in the combined school next year.
Four steps walk through the basic math.
Community resources
If you feel inspired to act, these community websites offer resources and ways to get involved:
Walk through the basic math · Step 1 of four
Let’s start with a simple assumption: the children who can return next year do return.
The current Mesa and Bear Creek schools have 534 children in the preliminary count. Subtract the 112 fifth graders moving on to middle school.
That leaves today’s kindergarten through fourth graders, our returning children.
Use this year’s combined kindergarten, 68 children, as a simple estimate for next year’s incoming class.
This assumes all current K–4 children return, with no other net enrollment change. It is a benchmark, not a forecast.
The current Bear Creek building’s stated capacity is 492.
490 children.
Two places to spare.
And that is only a building-wide total. Particular grades or classrooms could already be full. Being below 492 does not guarantee that every child fits in the classroom and program they need. See the grade-by-grade math →
Our school community, with two places left.
Each little student represents one child.
That is the entire building-wide margin in this benchmark.
BVSD’s August 28, 2026 preliminary count: Bear Creek K–4 = 264; Mesa K–4 = 158. Combined fifth grade = 112; kindergarten = 43 + 25 = 68. The enrollment count is an observation; carrying it into 2027–28 is our stated assumption. Capacity comes from the August proposal, p. 51.
Read the August 28 count · BVSD proposal and documents
Sources: data/raw/bvsd/enrollment_2026-27_weekly/enrollment_2026-08-28.pdf, p. 1, Bear Creek and Mesa rows; data/clean/enrollment_2026-27_weekly_elementary.csv, date=2026-08-28; analysis/output/table21_near_term_capacity.csv; data/raw/bvsd/resilient_schools_proposal_2026-08-25.pdf, p. 51.
Step 2 · A little variation. A very small cushion.
Kindergarten hasn’t stayed at 68. Over the last five complete school years, the combined class ranged from 58 to 84 children.
Choose a past class size to see how it would fit.
422 returning + 84 new kindergartners
A class size we’ve already seen would put us over capacity, holding everything else fixed.
The five historical values are official October counts, 2021–22 through 2025–26. Open all five original reports. The current 68 is the preliminary August 28, 2026 count, shown separately. These examples are sensitivity checks, not equally likely outcomes or enrollment forecasts. With 422 returning children, a kindergarten of 70 fills all 492 places; 71 exceeds capacity.
Sources: data/clean/mesa_bearcreek_combined_enrollment_by_grade_10yr.csv, school_year=2021-22 through 2025-26; independently reconciled to data/clean/bvsd_pupil_count_mesa_bearcreek.csv, file_family=headcount. Originals: data/raw/bvsd/pupil_count/<school_year>_cde_headcount_summary.pdf, p. 1, Bear Creek and Mesa rows.
Step 3 · Now look at the proposal
The proposal and recent FAQs imply that some current Mesa open-enrollment families will need to be turned away from the combined school to reach the district’s projected enrollment. This is an inference from the numbers and the proposed placement rules.
The FAQ calls this:
“managing choice enrollment beginning in 2027-28”
The closure rules put current Mesa open-enrollment families’ places at particular risk. The documents do not clearly explain how current students at each school would be treated.
Families deserved a direct, respectful warning. The proposal should have told currently enrolled Mesa open-enrollment families plainly that they face a high risk of being turned away from the combined school next year.
The district has not reconciled this 45–98-student gap or identified the families it assumes will leave. We need that answer.
The proposal does not transparently explain how it reaches its enrollment range or what that means for current open-enrolled students. We are connecting the published numbers with the proposed placement rules. This is an inference about the likely outcome, not an announced decision about particular children.
The district itself says its projections account for managing choice enrollment when buildings approach capacity. That is a concrete reason for concern. Read the district’s explanation.
Could families choosing not to enroll explain the gap instead? Keep the benchmark’s assumption of 68 incoming kindergartners. Compared with today’s 422 children in K–4, next year’s grades 1–5 would need to be smaller by:
Those are net losses, after any new arrivals offset departures. Across 11 year-to-year comparisons in the district’s 2014–15 through 2025–26 October counts, the largest comparable decline was 21 students, or 3.9%, entering the 2020–21 pandemic school year. That compares the two schools’ combined K–4 count with grades 1–5 the following year, excluding graduating fifth graders and incoming kindergarten.
The required decline would be larger than any in this twelve-year record, even the decline entering the COVID year. A smaller incoming kindergarten could explain part of the gap. But even with 58 kindergartners, the smallest combined kindergarten in those twelve October counts, reaching 445 would still require a net loss of 35 students, or 8.3%, from the returning grades.
These grade totals do not track individual children or tell us why families leave. Consolidation could change families’ choices, and the current starting count is preliminary. BVSD should explain the assumed departures, kindergarten intake and placement restrictions instead of leaving families to connect the dots.
Check the historical sources and method · Download all 11 year-to-year comparisons. The calculation download also includes the scenarios above.
Meanwhile, relocating Community Montessori and High Peaks farther from this neighborhood could increase demand for the combined school. A substantial reduction in attendance should be explained, not simply assumed. See the proposed relocations.
Mesa is identified as the closing school, so its families face the proposed closure-placement rules. The implications depend on where a child lives:
Current Bear Creek open-enrollment students are not unconditionally protected. JECC generally continues an open-enrollment placement through a school level, but allows enrollment adjustments. The FAQ also says each receiving school will get its own open-enrollment, space and staffing plan. It does not specify whether that plan will limit only new applications or also affect children already enrolled.
These rules support particular concern for Mesa families; they do not establish that only Mesa families could lose places. BVSD should say which current students can stay, who must reapply, and whether the same rules apply to both school communities.
Placement rules rechecked September 11, 2026. Proposal, p. 63 · FAQs · JECC and JECC-R
The August 25 proposal, p. 51, gives 392–445 for 2027–28. Its footnote ties the range to how many sending-school residents attend the receiving school. It is not a statistical confidence interval. The range is 45–98 below 490, but the documents reviewed do not provide the returning-student, incoming-kindergarten, choice and placement reconciliation needed to explain that gap.
The explanations above read the closure-placement rules alongside the FAQ’s promised receiving-school plans and the existing continuity and neighborhood-priority policies. The district needs to show how those provisions apply to current students at each school and produce its enrollment totals.
Read BVSD’s FAQ · Read JECC · Read JECC-R
Sources: data/clean/aug2026_deck_p51.csv; data/raw/bvsd/resilient_schools_proposal_2026-08-25.pdf, pp. 51 and 63; data/raw/bvsd/resilient_schools_faq.pdf, p. 3; data/raw/bvsd/web/bvsd_resilient_schools_proposal_faq_2026-09-03.txt, receiving-school capacity and open-enrollment questions; data/raw/bvsd/policy/JECC_assignment_of_students_to_schools.txt, School Choice; data/raw/bvsd/policy/JECC-R_open_enrollment_regulation.txt, District and School Annual Enrollment. FAQ and policy provisions rechecked online September 11, 2026.
Step 4 · The consequences for our community
For a child, this can mean a crowded school day or saying goodbye to friends. These are the consequences behind the numbers.
Friends stay together in the current Bear Creek building, nearly at capacity, in an open-plan layout, with almost no cushion for more children.
Will children have enough quiet space to concentrate, and will teachers have enough space to help?
The building has more room because some children are no longer there. For a current Mesa family, that can mean losing friends, familiar teachers and the community they chose.
The children who stay lose good friends, too. Turning away currently enrolled students breaks up friendships on both sides. The loss reaches the whole school community.
Children now attending the receiving school are affected too: their friendships, routines and school culture would change.
Illustrations imagine possible consequences. They do not depict an actual school or a decision already made.
The open classroom layout in the current Bear Creek building makes noise and distraction especially important. Children there already use headphones or earmuffs to block out noise.
Many Mesa families chose Mesa in part for a smaller setting with separate classrooms. When we talk about “fitting,” we should be talking about our children’s ability to learn, too.
We need a clear, public capacity and staffing plan showing that every grade and program can be supported.
Class size can matter. Tennessee’s randomized Project STAR found achievement benefits from smaller early-grade classes. That supports taking class size seriously; it does not estimate the effect of this particular merger. Read the study.
Noise is a learning issue. A study that alternated open and acoustically divided classrooms found faster reading-fluency development in the enclosed setting, with larger differences for children with weaker attention or speech perception in noise. It did not study the current Bear Creek building. Read the study.
The receiving community matters, too. A Chicago study found academic disruption and reported grief and difficulties combining school cultures among students and staff from both closing and welcoming schools. Some effects recovered; absence and suspension rates did not change. Outcomes depend on context and the schools children enter. These findings are reasons to demand a transition and well-being plan, not a prediction of identical effects here. Read the study.
What would this mean for my child’s grade? Explore class sizes →
Optional · Follow your questions
You have the main story. Pick a question to look closer.
Short story: With only two spare places in the benchmark, even a small enrollment increase could push the building over capacity.
Explore enrollment pressureShort story: If both full attendance shares shift after Community Montessori and High Peaks move, residents alone could exceed the district’s upper 2030 enrollment projection.
Explore another calculationShort story: Plausible increases in local residents and attendance could fill the building even without outside-area open-enrollment students or placements.
Explore future scenariosShort story: Meeting the class-size goals takes 21 classes under this scenario, and program spaces still need to be accounted for.
Explore class sizesEven more math · Why the pressure could grow
The proposal moves Community Montessori from Gillaspie Drive to Aurora 7. The move is likely to increase demand for a nearby neighborhood school.
High Peaks would move from Aurora 7 to Douglass, farther from the Mesa and Bear Creek neighborhood. Some local families may choose to stay closer to home.
BVSD’s enrollment range rises from 392–445 in 2027–28 to 403–462 in 2030–31. Families need a plan for later years, too.
The moves are proposed district actions. Their effects on local demand are expectations, not measured enrollment increases.
BVSD’s forecasts for the same school year, 2029–30, changed between its October 2025 presentation and February 2026 report: Mesa fell from 224 to 202 students, while Bear Creek rose from 272 to 310.
These are revised forecasts for the separate schools, not changes in actual enrollment. A plan with almost no room to grow needs to account for forecast uncertainty. Compare the district’s tables.
CU South is planned to include housing for faculty, staff and students. CU says university construction could begin no sooner than roughly 2030, after flood-protection work; site planning has not begun. That is a construction date, not a housing move-in date.
What student population, attendance boundaries and timing does BVSD assume? Is any of that demand already in its projections? No extra CU South children are added to the calculations here. Check the university’s timeline.
3 above stated capacity
Add a net change to the 490 benchmark. This is not an estimate of either school move’s effect.
The proposal, pp. 46–47, moves Community Montessori to Aurora 7 and High Peaks to Douglass. High Peaks’ current address is 3995 E. Aurora Avenue; Douglass is 840 75th Street, farther east. The relocations could lead more local families to choose the combined school. The residents-only examples show how different assumptions could fill the building.
Even more math · Another way to count
The same question remains: how does the proposal leave room for our children? This time, start with the district’s projected residents and a plausible attendance assumption.
attended the current Mesa or Bear Creek schools in 2025–26
About 83% of 502 local children
attended Community Montessori in 2025–26
About 5% of 502 local children
attended High Peaks in 2025–26
About 2.4% of 502 local children
could attend the combined school if both full shares shift
454 ÷ 502 local children
After Community Montessori and High Peaks move farther away, the combined school attracts both historical attendance shares, alongside the share already choosing the two current schools. These are observed 2025–26 shares applied to future residents, not the same children remaining enrolled through 2030. How much either move changes attendance is an assumption, not a measured effect.
522 × about 90.4% ≈
472resident children alone.
96% of building capacity.
Before adding outside-area choice students or placements. This is a scenario, not a forecast.
About 10 more resident children than the proposal’s upper total of 462, before adding any outside-area students or placements.
How does that total make room for open enrollment and placements?
The current Bear Creek building’s stated capacity is 492, leaving about 20 places in this scenario. Exceeding the proposal’s enrollment projection is different from exceeding the building’s capacity.
In 2025–26, the two schools also enrolled 98 choice students from outside the combined area and 23 placements. Those children’s place in the plan should be visible.
These are historical groups, not a fixed cohort to add to 2030. Children graduate and families’ choices change.
The 2025–26 elementary enrollment-pattern matrix contains 502 residents in the four areas: Bear Creek, Mesa, Optional Bear Creek/Mesa and Optional Bear Creek/Creekside. Of those, 415 attended the two current schools, 27 attended Montessori and 12 attended High Peaks. The proposal projects 522 residents in 2030–31 and gives a total enrollment range of 403–462 (p. 51).
The main case is 522 × (415 + 27 + 12) ÷ 502 = 472.09, or 95.95% of capacity. It exceeds the proposal’s upper total by 472.09 − 462 = 10.09 and leaves 492 − 472.09 = 19.91 places within the building. Calculations use exact counts before rounding.
The shifts are scenarios with no assigned probabilities. Smaller shifts produce lower enrollment. Could residents alone fill the building? The separate future scenarios add possible increases in the number of local residents.
The historical 98 outside-area choice students are 75 in-district plus 23 out-of-district. Cross-enrollment inside the four areas is already included in the 415. The separate 23 placements have no residential breakdown here. The boundary change is already effective in 2026–27; no extra increment is added. The matrix’s historical 502 and proposal’s historical 503 are kept separate.
Enrollment matrix, p. 1 · Proposal, pp. 46–47 and 51 · Boundary decision · Download all assumptions and calculations
Even more math · Future uncertainty
There is even more uncertainty farther into the future. 522 residents is a projection, not a ceiling. The alternative resident calculation holds that district projection fixed and considers attendance shifts after both school moves. The examples below also allow for more local residents.
These two combinations would each put resident children alone above the current Bear Creek building’s 492 stated places.
Assume 560 local residents, about 7% above BVSD’s 522, and keep the full Montessori-share shift used in the alternative resident calculation.
No outside-area choice students or placements are added. A higher resident count alone erases the remaining room under this attendance assumption.
Assume 545 residents, about 4% above BVSD’s 522, and add the historical High Peaks share as well as the Montessori share. About 90% then attend.
The matrix shows 12 local children at High Peaks. This scenario assumes the combined school attracts both focus-school shares after their moves. Again, no outside-area choice or placements are added.
Totals use exact historical shares before rounding: 442/502 and 454/502. The higher resident counts and full-share shifts are explicit scenario assumptions, not district forecasts or probability estimates.
The building could reach capacity before we add anyone from outside the neighborhood. What is the plan if that happens?
These are plausible combinations to plan for: the proposed school moves give families a reason to stay nearby, and the resident increases are small enough to matter in a building with so little room. The district should show its own uncertainty range and explain which assumptions keep our children’s school below capacity.
2025–26 matrix · District projection · See the attendance-share calculation
560 × 442/502 = 493.07; 545 × 454/502 = 492.89. Both exceed 492 before rounding. The hypothetical resident counts are 7.28% and 4.41% above the district’s projected 522. No outside-area students or placements are added. These are sensitivity examples without assigned probabilities, not forecasts.
Full shifts from the two focus schools are assumptions about future attendance shares, not a claim that the same historical children remain enrolled. A smaller shift or fewer residents would produce lower totals.
Even more math · Class sizes and teaching spaces
A place in the building is not the same as a workable class. The missing plan needs to show both.
Advance today’s K–4 children by one grade and assume another kindergarten of 68. The comparison below divides each grade into either three or four evenly balanced classes. These are staffing scenarios, not the district’s announced class sizes.
Grade totals include all counted pupils. The district must reconcile general-education rosters, program membership and inclusion time before these can become actual class assignments.
| Next grade | Children | If 3 classes | If 4 classes | BVEA goal per class |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K | 68 | 22 / 23 / 23 | 17 / 17 / 17 / 17 | 26 |
| 1 | 68 | 22 / 23 / 23 | 17 / 17 / 17 / 17 | 26 |
| 2 | 88 | 29 / 29 / 30 | 22 / 22 / 22 / 22 | 29 |
| 3 | 88 | 29 / 29 / 30 | 22 / 22 / 22 / 22 | 29 |
| 4 | 82 | 27 / 27 / 28 | 20 / 20 / 21 / 21 | 31 |
| 5 | 96 | 32 / 32 / 32 | 24 / 24 / 24 / 24 | 31 |
Each number separated by a slash is one class. New kindergarten is assumed; the other grades carry forward the August 28, 2026 preliminary count. BVEA values are goals, not guaranteed caps. Sources and calculation.
With three classes in every grade, there would be 18 classes. Under this pupil-allocation assumption, second, third and fifth grade would each have a class above the BVEA goal. Meeting all grade-specific goals would require 21 classes: 3, 3, 4, 4, 3 and 4 from kindergarten through fifth grade.
That is a staffing and space question. It does not tell us that 21 suitable teaching spaces are available, or how dedicated program spaces and shared services fit around them.
What do we actually know about the rooms?
A contractor’s project history describes a remodel of 18 classrooms at the current Bear Creek building. It appears on PDF page 117 (printed page 15) of the June 17, 2024 High Plains Library District board packet. Read the cited page.
BVSD’s February 2026 capacity table lists 3.5 capacity rounds for the current Bear Creek building (page 9, Bear Creek row); multiplying by six K–5 grades gives 21. Neither figure is a verified current count of usable instructional and program spaces. The contractor’s number describes renovation scope, and “rounds” describes an organizational capacity basis. They should not be treated as interchangeable counts.
Show families the aggregate capacity plan. How many suitable instructional spaces are available, and how many are needed for grade-level classes? How many additional spaces are needed for RISE, AIM, gifted and talented services, intervention, and small groups? How many acoustically separated teaching areas will be available, and what acoustic work is funded? No classroom locations or room-by-room building layout should be published.
Grade and program rosters, with no child counted twice.
Funded classes and clear triggers for adding staff.
Usable rooms, quiet areas and a schedule that fits.
BVSD’s January 2026 bond update planned construction at the current Bear Creek building for summer 2027. Its March update made the next steps conditional on Board decisions. Which rooms will be ready when children arrive, and what is the funded backup plan if work runs late? Read the district’s updates.
This comparison was prompted by another parent’s class-size analysis and rebuilt from district data. Their revised HTML now uses the same August 28 count and 490-child benchmark as this page. Their current class allocations still need confirmation. Three classes per grade remains a scenario here, not a verified district staffing commitment.
The FY2026–27 budget gives a guideline of one classroom teacher per 24.58 pupils, with adjustments for individual grades. That allocation formula is not a class-size cap. The BVEA agreement’s C-6 goals are 26 in K–1, 29 in grades 2–3 and 31 in grades 4–5. Program rosters and inclusion arrangements remain to be reconciled; no separate program pupils or assumed room deductions are added here.
A building can be below its stated capacity and still face a grade-level or program-space bottleneck. We have not applied a generic utilization discount to 492: the district needs to explain what its stated capacity already includes.
Count, capacity table, budget and agreement · Renovation record · Download all class-size calculations
Questions for the Board
Start by asking the Board:
What happens to the 45–98 students missing from the district’s projection?
That is the difference between the 490-child benchmark and the proposal’s 392–445 range. Families deserve to know how the district closes that gap, which children it assumes will leave, and what that means for currently enrolled Mesa families.
Families and Board members need time to read and digest concrete answers. The FAQs describe processes and later planning; we need the complete enrollment reconciliation and school-day plan.
These are our children.
Show us the math. Show us their place in the plan.
The people and evidence behind this page
I first took the proposal’s assurance that our children would fit in the current Bear Creek building at face value. But as a professional economist whose job is to analyze education policy, I wanted to take a closer look to understand the proposal’s implications and check for gaps.
I started by downloading 285 distinct documents, including over ten years of the district’s published enrollment data. I expected to need rigorous statistical analyses to make sense of the proposal’s numbers. Instead, simple arithmetic was enough to reveal gaps and raise basic questions about the plan.
I then connected with other parents who had done similar analyses and came to the same conclusions. We raised these questions by email to the Board and in public comment, and have not received answers. Until we have them, families cannot be sure what the plan will mean for their children next year.
To help other Mesa families understand what is at stake, I’m sharing this analysis. It was informed by and conducted in collaboration with many thoughtful Mesa parents and other parents across our community.
Tim Kautz
A proposal that affects so many students should make its steps, assumptions and calculations clear enough for families to check. The calculations above reconstruct the math and tradeoffs the proposal appears to imply; the district’s answers would let us test them.
In the spirit of full transparency: given the short time we have had access to the proposal, I used artificial intelligence tools to help analyze the relevant documents and prepare this site. I personally stand by the work and welcome corrections to any numbers or sources. I will update the analysis as additional information emerges.
I invite questions and corrections. Please email tdkautz@gmail.com. I would be very relieved to learn that I’ve made a mistake here. If I have, please point it out. Our children and families deserve that same openness from the district.
These sources support the whole analysis, including the basic math, the additional calculations and the questions for the Board. Each entry explains what it contributes and where to look.
This is what a transparent proposal should do: show its sources, explain its assumptions, and make the calculations easy to follow. The larger download inventory documents the research collection; this page draws on the specific sources cited here.
534 students in the two current schools; 112 fifth graders leave, leaving 422 in K–4. Current kindergarten is 68. Carrying those counts forward gives the 490-child benchmark.
Page 1, Bear Creek and Mesa rows. These are preliminary August counts, not the official October count.
Stated capacity of 492 in the current Bear Creek building; projected total enrollment of 392–445 in 2027–28 and 403–462 in 2030–31; projected 522 area residents in 2030–31. Also supports the proposed relocations and closure placement rules.
Page 51: capacity and projections; pp. 46–47: Montessori and High Peaks relocations; p. 49: Mesa and RISE proposal; p. 63: placement after closure. The enrollment ranges are district projections, not confidence intervals. If the BoardDocs PDF does not open, use the district proposal page and its presentation link.
For the same target year, 2029-30, Mesa’s projected enrollment changed from 224 to 202, while Bear Creek’s changed from 272 to 310. These revisions illustrate that forecasts can change in both directions. They are forecasts for the separate schools, not realized enrollment changes or forecasts of the proposed combined school.
October 21, 2025 Long Range Planning Update, slide 17 (table) and slide 20 (chart); February 10, 2026 Annual Enrollment Trend Report, p. 9. The October presentation reused the January 2025 forecast; the February report uses the January 2026 update. The comparison holds the target school year fixed.
Combined kindergarten counts of 82, 77, 58, 84 and 76 in 2021–22 through 2025–26. These establish the historical range of 58–84; they do not assign probabilities to future class sizes.
Page 1 of each CDE Head Count Summary, kindergarten column, Bear Creek and Mesa rows. Each report is linked separately below.
The collection contains twelve October head-count years, 2014–15 through 2025–26. Across eleven combined K–4 to following-year grades 1–5 comparisons, the largest net decline is 21 pupils (3.9%), from 535 in 2019–20 to 514 in the 2020–21 pandemic school year. Aggregate counts measure net change, not individual retention, family decisions or the cause of departures. The smallest combined kindergarten in this record is 58. Step 2 uses the latest five complete years; the ten-year presentation series begins in 2016–17.
CDE Head Count Summaries, p. 1, Bear Creek and Mesa rows in all twelve years. The historical comparison excludes incoming kindergarten and graduating fifth grade and combines both schools to avoid counting transfers between them as departures. Scenario percentages divide net losses by the 422 current K–4 pupils. They hold incoming kindergarten at 68, or at the historical minimum of 58 as a sensitivity check, not a forecast.
Of 502 residents in the four areas, 415 attended the two current schools, 27 attended Montessori and 12 attended High Peaks. Applying all three shares to the projected 522 residents gives about 472 resident pupils, conditional on both full focus-school shares shifting, not a forecast. This is about 10 above the projected upper enrollment of 462 and 20 below capacity of 492. Alternatives model no shift, half of both shares, and Montessori alone. The 2025–26 schools also enrolled 98 outside-area choice students and 23 placements; these are not fixed cohorts added to the future. Residents-only capacity examples use hypothetical resident counts of 560 and 545.
Page 1. Resident columns: Bear Creek, Mesa, Optional Bear Creek/Mesa and Optional Bear Creek/Creekside. The 98 comprises 75 outside-area in-district choice students and 23 out-of-district students; the separate placements have no residential breakdown here.
Managing choice enrollment near capacity; closure assignments and applications; school-specific open-enrollment, space and staffing plans for receiving schools; preschool timing; and investigation of School Age Care expansion. The FAQ does not specify whether receiving-school plans affect only new applicants or also current students. The interpretation of the enrollment gap is this page’s analysis.
Questions on receiving-school space, open-enrolled students at impacted schools, preschool and SAC. Closure and receiving-school provisions rechecked online September 11, 2026; remaining sections checked September 10. Archived FAQ p. 3 also discusses managing choice.
JECC generally continues granted open enrollment through the school level, subject to school-assignment or enrollment adjustments. JECC-R gives neighborhood residents registration priority and makes outside-area admissions dependent on space. These policies do not establish unconditional protection for current receiving-school students and must be read with the proposed closure rules.
JECC, School Choice; JECC-R, District and School Annual Enrollment. Relevant provisions rechecked online September 11, 2026.
The former optional Bear Creek/Creekside area becomes Bear Creek only in 2026–27. It is already effective for the August 2026 benchmark; no separate extra enrollment increment is added to the scenarios.
Approved boundary change and implementation timing; adopted September 23, 2025. Public page checked September 10, 2026.
High Peaks is currently at 3995 E. Aurora Avenue; Douglass is at 840 75th Street. The proposed High Peaks move is farther east from the Mesa neighborhood. Future enrollment responses are explicit assumptions in the scenarios.
School website address footers, checked September 10, 2026; relocation itself is in the proposal, pp. 46–47.
The 490-child benchmark by next-year grade is 68, 68, 88, 88, 82 and 96. Illustrative balanced allocations compare three and four classes per grade. Under that allocation assumption, 21 classes meet all BVEA grade-specific goals. Actual program rosters and room allocations are unverified. The February 2026 capacity table lists 3.5 capacity rounds for the current Bear Creek building; multiplying by six K–5 grades gives 21 as an organizational equivalent, not a verified room inventory.
August 28 count p. 1, school rows. FY2026–27 budget PDF p. 121 (printed p. 119), School Allocation Formulas. BVEA agreement PDF p. 19 (printed p. 12), C-6: goals of 26, 29 and 31 by grade band, not guaranteed caps. February 2026 Annual Enrollment Trend Report, PDF p. 9, Bear Creek row, Capacity Rounds column; table updated January 26, 2026.
Fransen Pittman describes remodeling 18 classrooms at Bear Creek Elementary in Boulder. This records renovation scope, not the total number of rooms or the present allocation. It is not a staffing commitment.
High Plains Library District, June 17, 2024 board packet, PDF p. 117 / contractor page 15, Bear Creek Elementary paragraph. User-supplied packet; the cited page is included below as an offline PDF download. The public host could not be verified because it returned access denied.
Randomized early-grade class-size evidence found achievement benefits from smaller classes. It does not estimate this merger’s effect.
Experimental Estimates of Education Production Functions (1997 working paper; published 1999), abstract and study design.
Alternating open and acoustically divided classrooms was associated with faster reading-fluency development in the enclosed condition, with larger differences among children with poorer attention or speech perception in noise. This study did not measure the current Bear Creek building.
The effect of classroom environment on literacy development, npj Science of Learning (2023), abstract and results. Reviewed through the indexed journal article and the lead author’s University of Melbourne account; automated full-text retrieval was blocked.
Academic disruption and reported grief and challenges merging cultures affected closing and welcoming school communities. Findings varied by outcome and over time; they are not a forecast for this consolidation.
School Closings in Chicago: Staff and Student Experiences and Academic Outcomes (2018), research overview, qualitative and quantitative findings.
Future housing includes faculty, staff and students. Site planning has not begun; university construction cannot start until flood-protection work is completed, with the earliest construction likely in 2030. This is not an occupancy date or a K–5 enrollment estimate.
CU Boulder South Next Steps and Shared Values, Binding Commitments; checked September 10, 2026. No increment for CU South is added to the enrollment scenarios; student yield, boundaries and inclusion in BVSD projections remain questions.
January's summer-2027 construction plan and March's conditional next steps raise a move-in readiness question, not evidence that classrooms will be unavailable.
Bear Creek Elementary bond page, January and March 2026 updates; checked September 10, 2026. March still refers to an October Board decision; the later consolidation proposal schedules its vote for September 22.
How the document count was calculated. The research archive contains 285 distinct downloaded documents: 269 PDFs and 16 spreadsheets. Identical file contents count once; different editions count separately. Extracted text, web pages, images and generated analyses are excluded. This counts the collection, not documents read in full, and does not claim the archive contains every published enrollment record.
Read the document names and browse the collection, or download all the original files together with an index that works after you extract the ZIP.
Follow every number back to its source. The download below contains the inputs, exact calculations, scenario assumptions, source URLs and archived file/page references used here. August 2026 preliminary counts, October 2025 attendance patterns and future district projections are kept separate.
Download the calculations and source map (JSON)This is a parent’s analysis, written personally, not an official BVSD publication.