At a meeting of the Bethlehem Central School District Board of Education, consultants from Tyler Technologies presented preliminary maps, a class‑size sensitivity analysis and a draft timeline for possible redrawing of elementary attendance zones, emphasizing that no decisions have been made and that the work remains a draft.

The presentation, led by Ted Thien, vice president and general manager for Tyler Technologies, explained the Zone of Attendance Committee’s process and recommended next steps. "There have been no decisions made yet," Thien said, adding that the consultants would report on a work in progress and later solicit public feedback. Ross Haber, president of Ross Haber Associates, told the board the district’s classroom supply constrains how small average class sizes can be districtwide: a target range of 18–20 students per elementary classroom would create a districtwide deficit of roughly 12 classrooms, while a 20–24 range would produce a surplus of about seven classrooms in the modeling presented to the board.

Why it matters: Board members and parents said redrawing boundaries could uproot student friendships and family routines. The district’s superintendent described a long‑term enrollment decline at the elementary level and said the process aims to balance class sizes, preserve program equity and limit unnecessary transfers. Many parents urged the board to prioritize minimizing disruption, ask for grandfathering, and publish underlying data so families can review assumptions.

What the committee presented: Thien said a 28‑member committee representing administrators, teachers, parents and other stakeholders worked with Tyler to produce neighborhood planning units and to prioritize tradeoffs. The committee used a forced‑ranking survey; class size and school program equity ranked highest, while transportation efficiency ranked lowest. Thien said those priorities shape how the team will develop options and that transportation modeling will follow once boundary options are defined.

Class‑size modeling: Haber described the sensitivity analysis the consultants ran using projected student yields by grade and school. Using the model shown to the board, an 18–20 target produced an estimated districtwide shortage of roughly 12 classrooms; a 20–24 range produced an estimated surplus of about seven classrooms. Haber cautioned the board these are preliminary model outputs that do not yet account for individual students currently attending out of zone and said, "this is not a final report, this is not a final finding." He said the team had received updated lists of out‑of‑zone students just before the meeting and would fold that information into further modeling.

Neighborhood boundaries and timeline: The consultants described draft neighborhood units—geographic building blocks the team would use if boundary changes are proposed—and said the maps remain preliminary. Thien said the district would hold a community feedback session on Nov. 20 at 6:30 p.m. in the middle school LMC, print maps for public review, and present initial recommendation options to the board in November. He said the board could choose to act in December, but the schedule could extend into January depending on further analysis and feedback.

Out‑of‑zone students and special education: Board members asked about students already attending schools outside their home zones. The superintendent said about 130 elementary students attend schools other than the ones where they are zoned and that roughly 60 of those are placed for special education or ELL/programmatic reasons. The consultants said they will include those students in later iterations of the model.

Public comment: More than a dozen parents and community members urged the board to minimize student moves, publish the district’s modeling data (with student identifiers redacted), and consider grandfathering currently enrolled students and their siblings. Lindy Davis, a parent, said, "Rezoning has the potential to significantly impact our students' well‑being as these students have moved away from their familiar school and they're going to lose their sense of community." Several speakers recommended a phased rollout so older students can finish elementary school with established peers.

What the board asked for next: Board members pressed the consultants on how rezoning would interact with the district’s capital plan, whether grandfathering had been discussed previously, and how developments under review in town were included in projections. Thien said approved and under‑construction housing developments were included in the model appendix and that projects still in review could be added if approved.

The next steps outlined by the consultants include: finalizing neighborhood unit maps with the committee, layering in individual out‑of‑zone student data, modeling transportation impacts for proposed options, holding the Nov. 20 public feedback session, returning to the committee for revisions, and presenting at least two or three options for the board to consider.

Ending: The consultants and the board emphasized the work remains preliminary and that public feedback will be a formal part of the next phase. The district posted the public meeting date and the presentation materials noted during the meeting will be updated as the committee continues work.