Planning for the Future - BoardDocs, a Diligent Brand

Planning for the Future2019/20 Enrollment Analysis

Discussion Points

2

IntroductionEnrollment and Demographics (Part One)

⚫ Key Considerations⚫ Maps: Planning Areas and Attendance Areas⚫ Sophisticated Forecast Model (SFM)⚫ Demographics⚫ Past Enrollment and Change⚫ Baseline Maps and Data

Development (Part Two)

⚫ Population, Development, and Enrollment Trends⚫ Yield Rate of Students⚫ Maps and Data

Enrollment Projections (Part Three)

⚫ Past, Current, Future Enrollment⚫ Building Projections

Moving Forward (Part Four)

⚫ Parking Lot⚫ Next Steps

⚫ Founded in 2003

⚫ Professional educational planning firm

⚫ Expertise in multiple disciplines

⚫ Over 20 Years of planning experience

⚫ Over 80 years of education experience

⚫ Over 20 years of GIS experience

⚫ Projection accuracy of 97% or greaterOver 130 clients in

Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota,

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and

Wisconsin

Who is RSP

3

Expectations

4

Below are some key points to think about as you examine how the analysis looked at creating a planning tool for making decisions:⚫ Project timeline a result of ensuring student data could represent as close as possible the Official Count with

attributes that would allow RSP to forecast enrollment at a parcel level geography

⚫ The findings were not focused on supporting or contradicting any past internal or outsourced studies – the analysis is

based on data, data, and more data

⚫ The study factored in many different data sets to provide data driven analysis that is the foundation to the RSP

Statistical Forecast Model (SFM)

⚫ Enrollment change in the community is influenced by but not limited to the birth rate, demographics, types of

development and/or housing affordability

⚫ Other items such as choices people make with the impact of COVID-19 must be monitored to ensure those choices

result in good school planning decisions

⚫ The study does not provide specific information about which site would be best suited for a new facility or for that

matter should the district build any new facility – this analysis is one portion of how to make that decision

⚫ This analysis is based on the same grade configuration and educational programming expectations the patrons have

for each student

⚫ Projecting enrollment is not a science – like life in general some assumptions happen that may lead to greater

enrollment while others toward a smaller enrollment

⚫ The goal of this study is to help the board, administration, and public understand how to make the best decision for

the students at the classroom level

⚫ This analysis was to be completed and presented to the Board in March 2020 – the pandemic changed the timeline

so the 2020/21 student enrollment is not officially integrated into the enrollment forecast

*Accurate projections are a result of the local entities providing quality data.*The data utilized in the analysis is the best available information each of the entities could provide at the time of the study.

Thank you!

Making it Happen

5

School District

⚫ Lawrence Public Schools

County, City & Others

⚫ Douglas & Leavenworth Counties

⚫ City of Lawrence

⚫ United States Geological Survey

⚫ Census Bureau/ Esri

Part OneEnrollment & Demographics

6

7

100,000 Foot PerspectiveEnrollment:

⚫ Enrollment Change – Overall enrollment increase anticipated after the decline from 2018/19 to 2019/20⚫ Kindergarten enrollment will likely range from 800 to 850 students

o COVID REALITY: 2020/21 had 654 students (Kindergarten is not mandatory)

⚫ District increases by about 40 students through 2024/25 (+0.4%) (-0.5% to +0.5% a year) o COVID REALITY: Decreased by 434 students from 2019/20 school year

⚫ Elementary increases by nearly 150 students through 2024/25 (+3.4%) (-0.8% to +1.5% a year)o COVID REALITY: Decreased by 302 students from the 2019/20 school year

⚫ Middle School decreases by nearly 170 students through 2024/25 (-7.1%) (-2.5% to +0.9% a year)o COVID REALITY: Decreased by 168 students from the 2019/20 school year

⚫ High School increases by over 50 students through 2024/25 (+1.6%) (-0.2% to +1.6% a year) o COVID REALITY: Increased by 36 students from the 2019/20 school year

Capacity (Post Bond Capacity Provided by District):

⚫ Elementary Challenges – 2020/21 District-wide Elementary building capacity is 69.3%:o Over 90% Building Utilization: Quail Runo Eleven of the Fourteen elementary schools have lower than 85% Building Utilization - Broken Arrow, Cordley, Deerfield, Hillcrest, Kennedy,

Langston Hughes, New York, Pinckney, Schwegler, Sunset Hill, and Woodlawn

⚫ Middle School Challenges – 2020/21 District-wide Middle School building utilization is 74.9%:o Less Than 85% Utilization: Billy Mills, Liberty Memorial, Southwest, and West

⚫ High School Challenges – 2020/21 District-wide High School building utilization is 84.5%:o Over 90% Utilization: Free State High School o About 300 more students at Free State HS compared to Lawrence HS

Development:

⚫ There are limited locations for new residential development within Lawrence Public Schools⚫ The impact COVID-19 may have on the economy and housing starts must be monitored

8

District Boundary

⚫District Boundary (Purple Line)⚫Major Streets⚫Major water features & cultural features

9

Elementary Attendance Areas

⚫District Boundary (Purple Line)⚫Major Streets⚫Major water features & cultural features⚫Attendance Areas (color shading)

10

Middle School Attendance Areas


11

High School Attendance Areas


12

Planning Areas

⚫Zoomed in view of Planning Areas (Green) Over 700 unique areas being analyzed for demographic, development, and enrollment change⚫Displays the power of GIS data & Information⚫See where students are located by grade in relation to streets, subdivisions, and parcels⚫Illustrates how the planning areas are tied to development types at the parcel level

13

Detailed Planning Areas

⚫Zoomed in view of Planning Areas (Blue) ⚫Displays the power of GIS data & Information⚫See where students are located by grade in relation to streets, subdivisions, and parcels⚫Illustrates how the planning areas are tied to development types at the parcel level

This is the central focus of everything RSP does. The model is based on what is happening in a school district. The best data is

statistically analyzed to provide an accurate enrollment forecast. The District will be able to use RSP’s report and maps to better

understand demographic trends, school utilization, and the timing of construction projects. 14

Sophisticated Forecast Model

Over 700 Planning Areas are

statistically analyzed in the district

15

RSP SFM Details

⚫ The important factor concerning the RSP SFM is that it is a Social Science not an exact science; it identifies behavior trends to determine the propensity of them to be recreated:

⚫ The value of the RSP SFM is how our team creates and analyzes the geography at a planning area level for any commonality which will help produce an accurate forecast

⚫ Some of the variables examined for each planning area (but not limited to):

o Natural Cohort (District data)

o Planning Area Subdivision Lifecycle (RSP variable)

o Value of Homes (County assessor data)

o Type of Residential unit (SF, MF, DUP, TH, Resort, etc.) (County assessor data)

o Year units were built (County assessor data)

o Estimated female population (Census data)

o Estimated 0-4 population (Census data)

o Existing Land Use (County and City data)

o Future Land Use (County and City data)

o Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) (County and City data)

o Future Developments (County and City data)

o In-Migration of students (District data)

o Out-Migration of students (District data)

16

Population of Kids 0-4, 2025

⚫Depicted by Census Block Group with 2025 estimates⚫Density weighted by land area of each Block Group⚫Red areas have greatest density, Blue have the least density⚫This data helps benchmark the projection model choices for future student enrollment

17

Population of Women 15-49, 2025

⚫Depicted by Census Block Group with 2025 estimates⚫Density weighted by land area of each Block Group⚫Red areas have greatest density, Blue have the least density⚫This data helps benchmark the projection model choices for future student enrollment

Annual Rate; Percent Change

Annual Rate; Percent Change

Unemployment RatePer Capita; Percent Change

18

District Demographics

Notes:

Overall the District is experiencing an increase in population at a higher rate than the previous ten years. Overall the District is experiencing an Increase in housing at a higher rate than the previous ten years. In a growing community housing and population should have a correlation and, on the surface, indicate a general housing supply/demand. The type of residential unit is not known in these numbers or how affordable the units are so more analysis is required. Income is projected to increase over two percent by 2024. Unemployment is higher than the State of Kansas.

2000-2010: + 0.88%2010-2020: + 0.99%2020-2025: + 1.01%

2020: $30,9192025: $34,0422020-2025: 1.94%

2020: 13.3%

2000-2010: + 1.10%2010-2020: + 1.13%2020-2025: + 1.14%

19

Demographic Consideration

Demographics Information⚫ Demographic attribute information for Lawrence Public Schools is similar to Manhattan – Ogden and Topeka Public Schools in

different aspects. Similar demographics to Manhattan – Ogden and population totals as Topeka.

⚫ The Unemployment Rate is higher than the State of Kansas (Note this is estimated from July due to COVID-19).

⚫ The Vacancy rate is lower than the other public school districts examined (Note this is estimated from July due to COVID-19).

Lawrence

Public Schools

Manhattan -

Ogden Public

Schools

Topeka

Public

Schools

City of

Lawrence

Douglas

County

State of

Kansas

Unemployment Rate 13.3% 13.9% 13.9% 13.5% 13.3% 11.9%

Average Household Size 2.28 2.35 2.26 2.27 2.33 2.5

Median Age 29.5 25.7 37.1 29.0 30.6 37.3

Total Population 102,396 64,682 96,171 97,137 122,297 2,960,432

Median Household Income $53,803 $46,813 $40,809 $52,701 $56,709 $57,598

Total Housing Units 44,630 27,759 47,071 42,323 52,415 1,295,318

Owner Occupied Housing Units 22,814 12,012 24,998 20,959 28,844 783,480

Renter Occupied Housing Units 18,658 12,752 16,143 18,383 19,931 370,672

Vacancy Rate 7.1% 10.8% 12.6% 7.0% 6.9% 10.9%

EthnicityLawrence

Public Schools

Manhattan -

Ogden Public

Schools

Topeka

Public

Schools

City of

Lawrence

Douglas

County

State of

Kansas

White 75.1% 76.8% 63.5% 74.3% 77.5% 74.9%

Black 5.0% 5.3% 11.2% 5.2% 4.4% 5.7%

American Indian/Alaskan 2.4% 0.3% 1.0% 2.4% 2.1% 0.8%

Asian 5.9% 5.6% 1.4% 6.1% 5.1% 3.2%

Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Other Race 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Two or More Races 4.2% 3.4% 4.5% 4.3% 3.9% 2.8%

Hispanic 7.2% 8.2% 18.2% 7.4% 6.7% 12.5%

Source; U.S. Census, Esri BAO

20

Employment Information

Employment Information⚫ This table provides the type of employment a person has based on the geography of each column

⚫ Highest percentage of employees are in Education / Library (20.3%)

⚫ When compared to all neighboring geographies, Lawrence Public Schools has a greater percentage of employees working in Eating and Drinking. (Note: Data from before COVID-19)

Lawrence Public

Schools

Manhattan -

Ogden Public

Schools

Topeka

Public

Schools

City of

Lawrence

Douglas

County

State of

Kansas

2019 Agriculture/Mining (SIC01-14) Employees 0.9% 2.6% 0.5% 0.8% 1.0% 1.8%

2019 Construction (SIC15-17) Employees 2.7% 3.5% 3.2% 2.4% 2.9% 4.3%

2019 Manufacturing (SIC20-39) Employees 6.0% 3.5% 3.7% 6.0% 5.9% 10.5%

2019 Transportation (SIC40-47) Employees 1.1% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.3% 2.8%

2019 Communication (SIC48) Employees 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 1.6%

2019 Utility (SIC49) Employees 0.1% 0.2% 1.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5%

2019 Wholesale Trade (SIC50-51) Employees 1.7% 1.9% 2.5% 1.5% 1.8% 4.5%

2019 Home Improvement (SIC52) Employees 2.0% 1.6% 0.7% 2.0% 1.9% 1.4%

2019 General Merchandise (SIC53) Employees 1.8% 2.1% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.4%

2019 Food Stores (SIC54) Employees 2.0% 2.6% 1.7% 2.0% 2.1% 2.3%

2019 Auto Dealer/Gas Station (SIC55) Employees 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 3.2%

2019 Apparel/Accessory (SIC56) Employees 0.7% 3.0% 0.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

2019 Furniture/Home Furnishings (SIC57) Employees 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8%

2019 Eating & Drinking (SIC58) Employees 10.3% 8.8% 5.3% 10.3% 10.2% 6.7%

2019 Miscellaneous Retail (SIC59) Employees 3.6% 2.7% 2.5% 3.6% 3.7% 2.9%

2019 Banks (SIC60-61) Employees 1.3% 1.1% 2.0% 1.3% 1.4% 1.9%

2019 Securities Broker (SIC62) Employees 1.2% 0.4% 0.7% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9%

2019 Insurance (SIC63-64) Employees 0.5% 0.6% 1.3% 0.6% 0.5% 1.3%

2019 Real Estate/Holding (SIC65-67) Employees 2.2% 2.4% 2.7% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1%

2019 Hotel/Lodging (SIC70) Employees 1.7% 1.0% 0.7% 1.8% 1.7% 0.9%

2019 Auto Services (SIC75) Employees 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 1.0%

2019 Movie/Amusement (SIC78-79) Employees 4.0% 2.3% 1.4% 4.1% 4.1% 2.5%

2019 Health Services (SIC80) Employees 8.1% 6.5% 20.1% 8.3% 8.0% 11.1%

2019 Legal Services (SIC81) Employees 0.6% 0.3% 1.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

2019 Education/Library (SIC82) Employees 20.3% 19.2% 4.8% 20.6% 20.4% 9.6%

2019 Other Service (SIC72-89SEL) Employees 14.1% 22.9% 16.7% 14.0% 13.9% 15.1%

2019 Government (SIC91-97) Employees 9.1% 5.4% 19.8% 9.2% 8.8% 6.2%

2019 Unclassified Establishments (SIC99) Employees 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4%

Source; U.S. Census, Esri BAO

21

Birth Information

Live Birth Observations⚫ Tracks the number of live births and the corresponding number of kindergarten students five years later

⚫ The number of live births in Douglas County is 9.8% fewer in 2018 than it was in 2005

⚫ Lawrence Public Schools has a range of 56.1% to 67.4% of County live births five years later

⚫ With fewer number of live births, it is likely there will be fewer kindergarten students five years later

Douglas County Kansas Live Births and Lawrence Kindergarten 5-Years Later

Calendar Year # Live Births Birth Change % Birth Change School Year # Kdg %Kdg of Live Births

2005 1,235 2010/11 693 56.1%

2006 1,257 22 1.8% 2011/12 790 62.8%

2007 1,308 51 4.1% 2012/13 808 61.8%

2008 1,273 -35 -2.7% 2013/14 856 67.2%

2009 1,232 -41 -3.2% 2014/15 781 63.4%

2010 1,263 31 2.5% 2015/16 850 67.3%

2011 1,216 -47 -3.7% 2016/17 780 64.1%

2012 1,262 46 3.8% 2017/18 804 63.7%

2013 1,219 -43 -3.4% 2018/19 822 67.4%

2014 1,216 -3 -0.2% 2019/20 732 60.2%

2015 1,327 111 9.1%

2016 1,177 -150 -11.3%

2017 1,134 -43 -3.7%

2018 1,114 -20 -1.8%

3-Year Average 1,141.7 -71.00

3-Year Weighted Average 1,131.2 -49.33

Source: Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and Lawrence Public Schools

*All past student data is exported from the district student database allowing the ability to do robust statistical analysis by student geography. The student database export will not always align perfectly with the Official Counts (Statistically 99% greater match by grade). 22

Enrollment by Grade

⚫ Kindergarten is not mandatory in the state of Kansas – Early Childhood (PK) started in the 2007/08 school year

⚫ Smallest K-12 class in 2019/20 – Kindergarten (732 students)

⚫ Largest K-12 class in 2019/20 – 10th grade (880 students)

⚫ COVID REALITY: Kindergarten enrollment in 2020/21 is 654 students (Smallest class since 2005/06)

⚫ Low number of 2020/21 kindergarten enrollment likely impacted by hybrid/online learning options

⚫ A smaller kindergarten class will impact the overall number of students in the district – likely fewer students in the middle school in six years

Year PK K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th K-12 Total PK-12 Total

2000/01 0 660 755 766 777 819 786 835 809 822 833 857 819 746 10,284 10,284

2001/02 0 664 728 754 746 766 812 829 819 795 828 872 854 773 10,240 10,240

2002/03 0 615 718 700 729 749 766 822 829 797 814 846 845 794 10,024 10,024

2003/04 0 639 660 721 698 709 714 744 804 829 814 833 833 822 9,820 9,820

2004/05 0 700 663 649 729 695 722 717 781 804 837 849 836 875 9,857 9,857

2005/06 0 650 742 661 640 735 703 697 743 771 818 850 869 785 9,664 9,664

2006/07 0 750 690 745 669 624 747 707 738 749 808 848 880 878 9,833 9,833

2007/08 151 710 792 688 726 663 623 706 745 773 772 788 809 729 9,524 9,675

2008/09 157 729 747 794 690 749 671 641 742 746 812 761 768 727 9,577 9,734

2009/10 174 716 772 745 785 693 734 671 710 762 742 829 732 709 9,600 9,774

2010/11 7 693 776 772 744 782 695 731 727 692 750 771 811 665 9,609 9,616

2011/12 181 790 728 775 781 749 787 710 789 737 719 757 755 767 9,844 10,025

2012/13 219 808 849 747 787 787 751 818 738 789 764 712 759 729 10,038 10,257

2013/14 226 856 836 835 755 774 800 735 859 753 799 758 732 758 10,250 10,476

2014/15 163 781 862 816 822 742 773 807 760 852 768 810 757 667 10,217 10,380

2015/16 187 850 773 822 821 824 739 812 830 778 894 789 808 736 10,476 10,663

2016/17 89 780 847 761 831 820 821 733 800 813 835 892 794 822 10,549 10,638

2017/18 254 804 771 849 764 824 822 824 740 810 882 826 874 777 10,567 10,821

2018/19 171 822 832 786 838 765 844 816 820 755 889 881 802 850 10,700 10,871

2019/20 191 732 795 785 757 799 750 802 821 810 821 880 855 789 10,396 10,587

Source: KSDE 2000/01 to 2008/09, Virtual School not in Totals from 2004/05 to 2019/20

Enrollment By Grade


Cohort Student Observation

⚫ Largest average K-12 class increase – 8th to 9th grade (+71 students)

⚫ Largest average K-12 class decrease – 10th to 11th grade (-23 students)

⚫ Significant cohort change happened comparable to the 2006/07 to 2007/08 school year – data does not provide a reason for the enrollment change at any specific grade

PK K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th

From To PK K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Percent

2000/01 2001/02 0 664 68 -1 -20 -11 -7 43 -16 -14 6 39 -3 -46 -44 -0.4%

2001/02 2002/03 0 615 54 -28 -25 3 0 10 0 -22 19 18 -27 -60 -216 -2.1%

2002/03 2003/04 0 639 45 3 -2 -20 -35 -22 -18 0 17 19 -13 -23 -204 -2.0%

2003/04 2004/05 0 700 24 -11 8 -3 13 3 37 0 8 35 3 42 37 0.4%

2004/05 2005/06 0 650 42 -2 -9 6 8 -25 26 -10 14 13 20 -51 -193 -2.0%

2005/06 2006/07 0 750 40 3 8 -16 12 4 41 6 37 30 30 9 169 1.7%

2006/07 2007/08 151 710 42 -2 -19 -6 -1 -41 38 35 23 -20 -39 -151 -309 -3.1%

2007/08 2008/09 6 578 37 2 2 23 8 18 36 1 39 -11 -20 -82 53 0.6%

2008/09 2009/10 17 559 43 -2 -9 3 -15 0 69 20 -4 17 -29 -59 23 0.2%

2009/10 2010/11 -167 519 60 0 -1 -3 2 -3 56 -18 -12 29 -18 -67 9 0.1%

2010/11 2011/12 174 783 35 -1 9 5 5 15 58 10 27 7 -16 -44 235 2.4%

2011/12 2012/13 38 627 59 19 12 6 2 31 28 0 27 -7 2 -26 194 2.0%

2012/13 2013/14 7 637 28 -14 8 -13 13 -16 41 15 10 -6 20 -1 212 2.1%

2013/14 2014/15 -63 555 6 -20 -13 -13 -1 7 25 -7 15 11 -1 -65 -33 -0.3%

2014/15 2015/16 24 687 -8 -40 5 2 -3 39 23 18 42 21 -2 -21 259 2.5%

2015/16 2016/17 -98 593 -3 -12 9 -1 -3 -6 -12 -17 57 -2 5 14 73 0.7%

2016/17 2017/18 165 715 -9 2 3 -7 2 3 7 10 69 -9 -18 -17 18 0.2%

2017/18 2018/19 -83 568 28 15 -11 1 20 -6 -4 15 79 -1 -24 -24 133 1.3%

2018/19 2019/20 20 561 -27 -47 -29 -39 -15 -42 5 -10 66 -9 -26 -13 -304 -2.8%

3-Yr Avg 34.0 614.7 -2.7 -10.0 -12.3 -15.0 2.3 -15.0 2.7 5.0 71.3 -6.3 -22.7 -18.0 -51.0 -0.5%

3-Yr Wavg 9.8 589.0 -5.7 -18.2 -17.7 -20.3 -0.5 -22.5 2.3 1.7 70.8 -6.3 -24.0 -17.3 -104.7 -1.0%

Source: KSDE 2000/01 to 2008/09, Virtual School not in Totals from 2004/05 to 2019/20

Change

Change By Grade from the Previous Year

24

Student In-Migration

2019/20 students who are in 1st through 12th grade that were not attending the District in 2018/19 as Kindergarten through 11th grade.⚫983 new students in 2017/18⚫969 new students in 2018/19⚫906 new students in 2019/20

25

Student Out-Migration

2018/19 students who were in Kindergarten through 11th grades that are not attending the District in 2019/20 as 1st through 12th grade.⚫929 new students in 2017/18 Total Migration +54⚫923 new students in 2018/19 Total Migration + 46⚫1,116 new students in 2019/20 Total Migration - 210

26

Student Count Change

⚫Depicts student movement each year at each Planning Area from 2009/10 to 2019/20⚫Orange areas experienced an increase year to year, Green areas experienced a decrease, White areas had no net change of students between year to year⚫New developments have a greater propensity to have more students in future years⚫Current colors do not indicate area will continue to increase or decrease

27

Student “Heat” Density

⚫Red areas depict highest density of students, Gray as lowest student density⚫Overlapping points (2 or more students) are handled using a weighting of coincident points⚫This analysis helps with understanding student population and geographic proximity to schools⚫Some new areas do not necessarily lead to similar yield rates of like developments

28

ES Intra-Transfers

⚫ Students who reside within an attendance area who attend school outside of that elementary school boundary⚫Hillcrest ES; Highest Net Gain; Kennedy ES; Highest Net Loss⚫11.76% of all Elementary students elect to transfer out of their assigned attendance area⚫ The number of Intra-Transfers impacts how the district can staff each building⚫Households may like the option of choosing the building their student can attend which may impact any future district policy

29

ES Intra-Transfers

Intra-Transfers Information for Elementary School⚫ Attend (Transferring in by row) and Reside (Transferring out by column)⚫ Example: Hillcrest ES has 17 students attending who reside in Broken Arrow ES boundary. This gives Hillcrest ES a gain in

students and Broken Arrow a loss in students.⚫ Hillcrest ES had the most transferring in (+163)⚫ Kennedy ES had the most transferring out (-69)

Brok

en A

rrow

Cord

ley

Dee

rfie

ld

Hill

cres

t

Kenn

edy

Lang

ston

Hug

hes

New

Yor

k

Pinc

kney

Prai

rie

Park

Qua

il Ru

n

Schw

egle

r

Sunf

low

er

Suns

et H

ill

Woo

dlaw

n

Broken Arrow 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 4 2 1 1 16

Cordley 3 0 13 1 4 8 8 20 1 2 3 0 1 6 70

Deerfield 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 9 4 1 11 0 31

Hillcrest 17 2 7 0 36 7 20 6 20 11 7 2 27 1 163

Kennedy 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 19

Langston Hughes 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 9 5 8 4 1 34

New York 0 1 0 2 8 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 7 23

Pinckney 3 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 19

Prairie Park 1 0 0 0 7 1 3 0 0 1 5 4 2 1 25

Quail Run 3 1 5 1 1 4 0 2 1 0 1 3 6 1 29

Schwegler 6 0 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 3 1 0 24

Sunflower 1 0 0 1 1 10 1 0 0 4 9 0 2 0 29

Sunset Hill 0 1 3 1 4 0 2 6 0 7 6 5 0 1 36

Woodlawn 1 6 2 1 3 0 3 0 0 5 2 2 0 0 25

Reside Total 39 18 38 13 69 33 54 39 28 56 47 31 57 21 543

Sources: Douglas County, USD 497, and RSP & Associates, LLC

Attend

Reside

Att

end

Tota

l

30

MS Intra-Transfers

⚫Students who reside within an attendance area who attend school outside of that middle school boundary⚫Southwest MS; Highest Net Gain; Liberty Memorial Central MS; Highest Net Loss⚫6.57% of all Middle students elect to transfer out of their assigned attendance area⚫The number of Intra-Transfers impacts how the district can staff each building⚫Households may like the option of choosing the building their student can attend which may impact any future district policy

31

HS Intra-Transfers

⚫Students who reside within an attendance area who attend school outside of that high school boundary⚫Lawrence HS; Highest Net Gain; Free State ES; Highest Net Loss⚫5.32% of all High School students elect to transfer out of their assigned attendance area⚫The number of Intra-Transfers impacts how the district can staff each building⚫Households may like the option of choosing the building their student can attend which may impact any future district policy

32

MS / HS Intra-Transfers

Intra-Transfers Information for Middle School⚫ Attend (Transferring in by row) and Reside (Transferring

out by column)⚫ Example: Billy Mills MS has 10 students attending who

reside in West MS boundary. This gives Billy Mills MS a gain in students and West MS a loss in students.

⚫ Southwest MS had the most transferring in (+52)⚫ Liberty Memorial Central had the most transferring out (-

52)

Bil

ly M

ills

Lib

ert

y M

em

ori

al C

en

tral

Sou

thw

est

We

st

Billy Mills 0 24 12 10 46

Liberty Memorial Central 9 0 3 10 22

Southwest 20 8 0 24 52

West 5 20 15 0 40

Reside Total 34 52 30 44 160


Attend

Reside

Att

en

d T

ota

l

Fre

e S

tate

Hig

h

Law

ren

ce H

igh

Free State High 0 83 83

Lawrence High 95 0 95

Reside Total 95 83 178


Attend

Reside

Att

end

To

tal

Intra-Transfers Information for High School⚫ Attend (Transferring in by row) and Reside (Transferring

out by column)⚫ Example: Free State High has 83 students attending who

reside in Lawrence High boundary. This gives Free State High a gain in students and Lawrence High a loss in students.

⚫ Lawrence High had the most transferring in (+95)⚫ Free State had the most transferring out (-83)

33

Enrollment ObservationThe following are some general enrollment observations;

⚫ The district has maintained contiguous boundaries for elementary schools

⚫ RSP & Associates monitors over 700 planning areas for demographic, development, and enrollment data sets

⚫ Direct correlation between women in childbearing ages (15-49) and where children (0-4) reside will need to be monitored for demographic shifts, while understanding areas near KU with higher numbers of women may not correlate with more K-12 students

⚫ The number of live births has decreased over the last 10 years which likely will impact the number of future kindergarten students

⚫ Enrollment has changes from grade to grade each year at each level

o Large increases happen from 8th to 9th grade

o Large decreases happen from 10th to 11th grade

⚫ The highest student density in the district is in Kennedy Elementary School area

⚫ Movement (Intra-Transfers) are influenced the location of specific educational programing

⚫ Analyzing the pandemic results for the 2020/21 school year will be critical in making any future planning decisions

Part TwoDevelopment

34

35

⚫ Census data indicates an increasing population

⚫ Building trend data indicates there has been steady new residential activity that decreased in 2019

⚫ Student enrollment trend data had been positive for four consecutive years before decreasing in 2019/20 school year

⚫ The ability to have new residential development that is affordable helps the district continue to attract new families with younger added students

Population, Development, & Enrollment

Source: Census Bureau, Douglas County, Lawrence Public School District and RSP SFM & Demographic Models


Student Yield Rate (SF)

Single Family Table Explanation⚫ Depicts elementary (K-5) enrollment and the corresponding yield rate for 100 housing units

⚫ Single-Family residential average (.15) has stayed consistent over the past decade

⚫ Adding newer housing inventory typically can increase the yield rate

o The Heat map assists in understanding how that has changed over time (Page 27)

o Residential unit activity provides the basis for timeline and where units likely are built (Page 39)

o From 2003 to 2019 there were approximately 2,631 single family units added to the building inventory

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Avg

Broken Arrow Elementary 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.14

Cordley Elementary 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08

Deerfield Elementary 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.2 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

Hillcrest Elementary 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.1 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.08

Kennedy Elementary 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.2 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.21

Langston Hughes Elementary 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.24

New York Elementary 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.11

Pinckney Elementary 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.11

Prairie Park Elementary 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.2 0.21 0.22 0.2 0.22

Quail Run Elementary 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.2 0.19 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.18

Schwegler Elementary 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.13

Sunflower Elementary 0.2 0.2 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.2 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.19

Sunset Hill Elementary 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14

Woodlawn Elementary 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17

District (K-5): 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15

SchoolsYear

Single Family (SF)


Student Yield Rate (MF)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Avg

Broken Arrow Elementary 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.11

Cordley Elementary 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03

Deerfield Elementary 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.11

Hillcrest Elementary 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04

Kennedy Elementary 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16

Langston Hughes Elementary 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06

New York Elementary 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14

Pinckney Elementary 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.09

Prairie Park Elementary 0.17 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.18 0.2 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.16

Quail Run Elementary 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08

Schwegler Elementary 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.06

Sunflower Elementary 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07

Sunset Hill Elementary 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.09

Woodlawn Elementary 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.1 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12

District (K-5): 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08

SchoolsYear

Multi-Family (MF)

Multi-Family Table Explanation⚫ Multi-family consists of any residential unit that would be classified as Townhome, Duplex, Apartment, and mobile home – basically everything other than single-family

⚫ Depicts elementary (K-5) enrollment and the corresponding yield rate for 100 housing units

⚫ Single-Family residential average (.15) has a higher student yield rate when compared to Multi-Family residential (.08) within the district.

⚫ Multi-Family residential average (.08) has stayed consistent over the past decade

⚫ Adding newer housing inventory typically can increase the yield rate

o The Heat map assists in understanding how that has changed over time (Page 27)

o Residential unit activity provides the basis for timeline and where units likely are built (Page 439)

o From 2003 to 2019 there were approximately 4,431 multi-family units added to the building inventory

38

⚫ Based on assessed Home Value as provided and maintained by the county assessor’s office⚫ Home values correlated to socio-economic status – new areas tend to be the least affordable⚫ Areas shaded in Orange and Red have the greatest Median Home Value, Blue represents the greatest affordability

Median Home Value

39

⚫ Reveals the build out and timing of residential development within the district⚫ Some new areas do not necessarily lead to similar yield rates of like developments⚫ While areas may be platted for residential it may take several years for houses to be built and new student residents to movein

Residential Year Built

40

⚫ Identifies where development activity is happening (Green). Identifies possible areas that could develop (Yellow and Purple)⚫ The market and property owners desire to build guides the timing of development. Other properties not shown might develop

while some shown might not develop

Growth Areas

41

Notes:⚫ Table 1: The number of Single-Family (SF) units available by year in Free State HS and the number of students attending USD 497⚫ Table 2: The number of Multi-Family (MF) units available by year in Free State HS and the number of students attending USD 497⚫ Table 3: The number of Total units available by year in Free State HS and the number of students attending USD 497⚫ Table 4: The percentage of students in Free State HS who live in either Single-Family or Multi-Family development

Free State High School Analysis

Table 1 Table 2

Table 3 Table 4

42

Notes:⚫ Table 1: The number of Single-Family (SF) units available by year in Lawrence HS and the number of students attending USD 497⚫ Table 2: The number of Multi-Family (MF) units available by year in Lawrence HS and the number of students attending USD 497⚫ Table 3: The number of Total units available by year in Lawrence HS and the number of students attending USD 497⚫ Table 4: The percentage of students in Lawrence HS who live in either Single-Family or Multi-Family development

Lawrence High School Analysis

Table 1 Table 2

Table 3 Table 4

43

Development Observation

The following are some general development observations:

⚫ Building activity will potentially slow for the next year or two because of COVID-19 where some of the future residential will be within city limits of Lawrence but not in the Lawrence Public School boundary

⚫ Single-Family residential has a slightly higher propensity to have school aged students, yield rates of this development type are much higher than that of Multi-Family

⚫ Affordable housing is the key to the future of the district, it is becoming more challenging for builders to construct similar type of housing products that will meet household incomes

⚫ The price of homes has an influence on the student change throughout all grade levels

⚫ Residential development activity outlook is optimistic – mostly concentrated near K-10 on the west and in the southeast area near South Lawrence Traffic way. Timing of new development on west side of K-10 and annexation requests will determine the speed of future enrollment increase

⚫ Tracking the types of infill development is important to understand the yield rate of students for every part of the community – there are varying yield rates with all developments – and the attraction of people choosing to move with a home/work environment is a unique situation

⚫ Annexations and approving developments has had some challenges which if continues may impact how and what type of residential development will happen over the next five years

⚫ Monitoring the economic impacts of COVID-19 on the community in terms of students physically residing in the community or utilizing online learning environments along with how communities adapt to changes with respect to attending sporting events and day to day shopping, as well as interaction with people could radically change where people choose to live, and as such the number of students the district will have in future years

Part ThreeEnrollment Projections

44

45

Projection View

⚫ Enrollment Change – Overall enrollment increase anticipated after the decline from 2018/19 to 2019/20⚫ Increases based on continued development opportunities and demographic changes within the district⚫ District increases by about 40 students (+0.4%) (-0.5% to +0.5% a year) (COVID REALITY: Decreased by 434 students)⚫ Elementary increases by nearly 150 students (+3.4%) (-0.8% to +1.5% a year) (COVID REALITY: Decreased by 302 students)⚫ Middle School decreases by nearly 170 students (-7.1%) (-2.5% to +0.9% a year) (COVID REALITY: Decreased by 168 students)⚫ High School increases by over 50 students (+1.6%) (-0.2% to +1.6% a year) (COVID REALITY: Increased by 36 students)

Source: Lawrence Public School District and RSP SFM & Demographic Models

46

Projection NotesProjections Clarification:

Past Enrollment is shown three different ways:

1. Reside (Based on where a student Resides in relation to the attendance area – Not Include Virtual Students)

2. Attend (Based on what school the student is attending (Intra-student choice)

3. Reside/Attend (Subset of Reside to know how many of the Reside attend the school based on the attendance area they are assigned to)

Projections are shown two ways:

1. Reside (Based on where a student Resides in relation to the attendance area: Not include Virtual Students)

2. Attend (Based on where the student may likely attend (Intra-student choice)

Capacity

⚫ Provided by District and reflect what the capacity is after Bond projects completed⚫ Capacity should be annually examined to ensure appropriate education space is available⚫ RSP recommends utilization of each school to operate efficiently to be between 85% and 95%

o Orange shading depicts where over Post Bond Capacityo Grey shading depicts where under 85% Post Bond Capacity

Other Items

⚫ Enrollment Grade Configuration in Student Forecast Model (K-5, 6-8, 9-12)⚫ Open enrollment trends are assumed to follow district policy and will continue like those trends during the projection time frame⚫ Integrated potential outcomes as a result of COVID-19 that relate to a slowdown in new housing starts and challenges with the

economy as it adapts to the “New Normal”⚫ COVID REALITY: Hybrid and Online learning had a negative impact to the 2020/21 school year enrollment⚫ Highly recommended to annually analyze the enrollment to integrate potential COVID outcomes from what has been learned with

the 2020/21 enrollment


Elementary Projections

Recommended building capacity utilization is between 85% and 95%

School Capacity Student

Post Bond Location 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25

Broken Arrow Res/Att 287 287 263

350 Reside 342 332 302 291 291 287 291 294 83.1% 83.1% 82.0% 83.1% 84.0%

Grades K-5 Attend 299 292 279 271 262 258 262 265 77.4% 75.0% 73.8% 75.0% 75.8%

Cordley Res/Att 162 158 146

375 Reside 176 172 164 180 180 194 204 212 48.0% 48.0% 51.7% 54.4% 56.5%

Grades K-5 Attend 245 231 216 218 234 248 258 266 58.1% 62.5% 66.2% 68.9% 71.0%

Deerfield Res/Att 460 457 450

575 Reside 491 500 488 494 491 488 470 470 85.9% 85.4% 84.9% 81.7% 81.7%

Grades K-5 Attend 482 492 481 490 484 481 463 463 85.2% 84.1% 83.6% 80.5% 80.5%

Hillcrest Res/Att 157 180 172

450 Reside 162 186 185 188 195 201 210 216 41.8% 43.3% 44.7% 46.7% 48.0%

Grades K-5 Attend 308 331 335 336 343 349 358 364 74.7% 76.3% 77.6% 79.6% 81.0%

Kennedy Res/Att 213 199 168

400 Reside 267 259 237 234 222 221 213 213 58.5% 55.5% 55.3% 53.3% 53.3%

Grades K-5 Attend 232 220 187 185 176 175 167 167 46.3% 43.9% 43.7% 41.7% 41.7%

Langston Hughes Res/Att 481 481 467

600 Reside 507 516 500 488 482 473 489 500 81.3% 80.3% 78.8% 81.5% 83.3%

Grades K-5 Attend 511 522 501 481 485 476 492 503 80.2% 80.8% 79.3% 81.9% 83.8%

New York Res/Att 209 228 186

300 Reside 257 277 240 239 244 246 256 261 79.7% 81.3% 82.0% 85.3% 87.0%

Grades K-5 Attend 226 246 209 209 213 215 225 230 69.7% 71.0% 71.7% 75.0% 76.7%

ELEMENTARY TOTAL

6,225 Reside 4,834 4,887 4,618 4,642 4,603 4,667 4,704 4,774 74.6% 73.9% 75.0% 75.6% 76.7%

Grades K-5 Attend 4,834 4,887 4,618 4,642 4,603 4,667 4,704 4,774 74.6% 73.9% 75.0% 75.6% 76.7%

Source: RSP & Associates, LLC - August 2020

Future CapacityFuture EnrollmentPast School Enrollment

Below 85% Post-Bond Building Capacity

Exceed District Post-Bond Building Capacity


Elementary Projections




Pinckney Res/Att 228 208 181

350 Reside 268 246 220 216 208 222 221 230 61.7% 59.4% 63.4% 63.1% 65.7%

Grades K-5 Attend 249 230 200 198 189 203 202 211 56.6% 54.1% 58.1% 57.8% 60.4%

Prairie Park Res/Att 336 353 346

475 Reside 373 389 374 387 393 408 420 420 81.5% 82.7% 85.9% 88.4% 88.4%

Grades K-5 Attend 370 382 371 382 389 404 416 416 80.4% 81.8% 85.0% 87.5% 87.5%

Quail Run Res/Att 412 444 444

500 Reside 478 501 500 511 510 510 512 521 102.2% 102.0% 102.0% 102.4% 104.2%

Grades K-5 Attend 449 477 473 476 484 484 486 495 95.2% 96.8% 96.8% 97.2% 99.0%

Schwegler Res/Att 367 378 321

500 Reside 406 420 368 376 381 400 413 422 75.2% 76.2% 80.0% 82.6% 84.4%

Grades K-5 Attend 395 398 345 355 358 377 390 399 71.0% 71.7% 75.5% 78.1% 79.9%

Sunflower Res/Att 447 448 401

575 Reside 476 483 432 431 416 424 430 421 75.0% 72.3% 73.7% 74.8% 73.2%

Grades K-5 Attend 461 468 430 439 410 418 424 415 76.3% 71.2% 72.6% 73.7% 72.1%

Sunset Hill Res/Att 353 355 342

475 Reside 429 409 399 399 388 381 375 386 84.0% 81.7% 80.2% 78.9% 81.3%

Grades K-5 Attend 391 387 378 390 367 360 354 365 82.1% 77.2% 75.7% 74.5% 76.8%

Woodlawn Res/Att 194 186 188

300 Reside 202 197 209 208 202 212 200 208 69.3% 67.3% 70.7% 66.7% 69.3%

Grades K-5 Attend 216 211 213 212 209 219 207 215 70.7% 69.8% 73.1% 69.1% 71.8%

ELEMENTARY TOTAL

6,225 Reside 4,834 4,887 4,618 4,642 4,603 4,667 4,704 4,774 74.6% 73.9% 75.0% 75.6% 76.7%

Grades K-5 Attend 4,834 4,887 4,618 4,642 4,603 4,667 4,704 4,774 74.6% 73.9% 75.0% 75.6% 76.7%






Secondary School Projections




Liberty Memorial Central Res/Att 382 450 535

625 Reside 425 498 539 542 559 509 527 496 86.7% 89.4% 81.4% 84.3% 79.4%

Grades 6-8 Attend 482 476 509 520 523 473 491 460 83.2% 83.7% 75.7% 78.6% 73.6%

Billy Mills Middle Res/Att 532 564 487

800 Reside 564 596 569 540 522 517 495 503 67.5% 65.3% 64.6% 61.9% 62.9%

Grades 6-8 Attend 614 603 581 555 534 529 507 515 69.4% 66.8% 66.1% 63.4% 64.4%

Southwest Middle Res/Att 599 631 603

800 Reside 678 656 633 621 625 625 603 589 77.6% 78.1% 78.1% 75.4% 73.6%

Grades 6-8 Attend 644 670 655 628 651 651 629 615 78.5% 81.4% 81.4% 78.7% 76.9%

West Middle Res/Att 594 610 648

800 Reside 707 641 692 668 636 631 677 677 83.5% 79.5% 78.9% 84.6% 84.6%

Grades 6-8 Attend 634 642 688 668 617 612 658 658 83.5% 77.1% 76.5% 82.3% 82.3%

Free State High Res/Att 1,691 1,759 1,736

2,000 Reside 1,799 1,849 1,831 1,839 1,859 1,861 1,876 1,894 92.0% 93.0% 93.1% 93.8% 94.7%

Grades 9-12 Attend 1,749 1,845 1,819 1,827 1,850 1,852 1,867 1,885 91.4% 92.5% 92.6% 93.3% 94.2%

Lawrence High Res/Att 1,502 1,487 1,431

Construction Done 21/22 2,000 Reside 1,560 1,573 1,514 1,559 1,551 1,549 1,528 1,505 78.0% 77.6% 77.5% 76.4% 75.3%

Grades 9-12 Attend 1,610 1,577 1,526 1,571 1,560 1,558 1,537 1,514 78.6% 78.0% 77.9% 76.9% 75.7%

MIDDLE TOTAL

3,025 Reside 2,374 2,391 2,433 2,371 2,342 2,282 2,302 2,265 78.4% 77.4% 75.4% 76.1% 74.9%

Grades 6-8 Attend 2,374 2,391 2,433 2,371 2,325 2,265 2,285 2,248 78.4% 76.9% 74.9% 75.5% 74.3%

HIGH TOTAL

4,000 Reside 3,359 3,422 3,345 3,398 3,410 3,410 3,404 3,399 85.0% 85.3% 85.3% 85.1% 85.0%

Grades 9-12 Attend 3,359 3,422 3,345 3,398 3,410 3,410 3,404 3,399 85.0% 85.3% 85.3% 85.1% 85.0%

DISTRICT K -12 TOTALS

13,250 Reside 10,567 10,700 10,396 10,411 10,355 10,359 10,410 10,438 78.6% 78.2% 78.2% 78.6% 78.8%

Grades K-12 Attend 10,567 10,700 10,396 10,411 10,338 10,342 10,393 10,421 78.6% 78.0% 78.1% 78.4% 78.7%






Building Projections (Reside By Grade)

ES Building Level Projections (Transfers Not Included) Past to Current and 2020/21 Likely RSP Projection

Elementary School Kind 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total Year Kind 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total

Broken Arrow 52 38 52 45 54 50 291 2000/01 660 755 766 777 819 786 835 809 822 833 857 819 746 10,284

Cordley 35 28 32 29 24 32 180 2001/02 664 728 754 746 766 812 829 819 795 828 872 854 773 10,240

Deerfield 79 89 81 90 80 75 494 2002/03 615 718 700 729 749 766 822 829 797 814 846 845 794 10,024

Hillcrest 36 38 33 27 27 27 188 2003/04 639 660 721 698 709 714 744 804 829 814 833 833 822 9,820

Kennedy 38 31 40 44 37 44 234 2004/05 700 663 649 729 695 722 717 781 804 837 849 836 875 9,857

Langston Hughes 79 76 83 74 91 85 488 2005/06 650 742 661 640 735 703 697 743 771 818 850 869 785 9,664

New York 44 33 45 36 41 40 239 2006/07 750 690 745 669 624 747 707 738 749 808 848 880 878 9,833

Pinckney 39 38 30 41 25 43 216 2007/08 710 792 688 726 663 623 706 745 773 772 788 809 729 9,524

Prairie Park 75 67 74 57 54 60 387 2008/09 729 747 794 690 749 671 641 742 746 812 761 768 727 9,577

Quail Run 85 77 83 91 87 88 511 2009/10 716 772 745 785 693 734 671 710 762 742 829 732 709 9,600

Schwegler 75 68 66 58 48 61 376 2010/11 693 776 772 744 782 695 731 727 692 750 771 811 665 9,609

Sunflower 70 52 81 69 76 83 431 2011/12 790 728 775 781 749 787 710 789 737 719 757 755 767 9,844

Sunset Hill 67 56 59 71 72 74 399 2012/13 808 849 747 787 787 751 818 738 789 764 712 759 729 10,038

Woodlawn 34 37 27 46 24 40 208 2013/14 856 836 835 755 774 800 735 859 753 799 758 732 758 10,250

ES Total 808 728 786 778 740 802 4,642 2014/15 781 862 816 822 742 773 807 760 852 768 810 757 667 10,217

2015/16 850 773 822 821 824 739 812 830 778 894 789 808 736 10,476

2016/17 780 847 761 831 820 821 733 800 813 835 892 794 822 10,549

MS Building Level Projection (Transfers Not Included) 2017/18 804 771 849 764 824 822 824 740 810 882 826 874 777 10,567

Middle School 6th 7th 8th Total 2018/19 822 832 786 838 765 844 816 820 755 889 881 802 850 10,700

Liberty Memorial Central 171 193 178 542 2019/20 732 795 785 757 799 750 802 821 810 821 880 855 789 10,396

Billy Mills Middle 181 168 191 540 2020/21 RSP Likely 808 728 786 778 740 802 740 804 827 880 816 859 843 10,411

Southwest Middle 196 209 216 621

West Middle 192 234 242 668 Projection Check and Balance

MS Total 740 804 827 2,371 Check and Balance Item Kind 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th Total

Kind 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

Proj growth previous year 76.0 -4.0 -9.0 -7.0 -17.0 3.0 -10.0 2.0 6.0 70.0 -5.0 -21.0 -12.0 72

HS Building Level Projection (Transfers Not Included) Proj cohort change 16/17 -76.0 -80.0 58.0 -8.0 -38.0 62.0 -62.0 64.0 23.0 53.0 -64.0 43.0 -16.0 -41

High School 9th 10th 11th 12th Total 3 Yr Avg Cohort change -16.0 -2.7 -10.0 -12.3 -15.0 2.3 -15.0 2.7 5.0 71.3 -6.3 -22.7 -18.0 -36.7

Free State High 462 438 478 461 1,839 3 Yr Wgt Avg Cohort Change -35.0 -5.7 -18.2 -17.7 -20.3 -0.5 -22.5 2.3 1.7 70.8 -6.3 -24.0 -17.3 -92.7

Lawrence High 418 378 381 382 1,559

HS Total 880 816 859 843 3,398 District Level Projection (Transfers Not Included)

Grade Level Kind 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total

Elementary School 808 728 786 778 740 802 4,642

Middle School 740 804 827 2,371High School 880 816 859 843 3,398

Source: RSP & Associates, LLC Statistical Forecast Model 2019/20 Total Enrollment 10,411


Building Projections (Attend By Grade)

ES Building Level Projections (Transfers Included) Past to Current and 2020/21 Likely RSP ProjectionElementary School Kind 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total Year K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th K-12 Total

Broken Arrow 49 35 53 40 48 46 271 2000/01 660 755 766 777 819 786 835 809 822 833 857 819 746 10,284

Cordley 41 34 41 33 32 37 218 2001/02 664 728 754 746 766 812 829 819 795 828 872 854 773 10,240

Deerfield 79 89 77 94 79 72 490 2002/03 615 718 700 729 749 766 822 829 797 814 846 845 794 10,024

Hillcrest 52 54 59 58 54 59 336 2003/04 639 660 721 698 709 714 744 804 829 814 833 833 822 9,820

Kennedy 30 23 33 36 25 38 185 2004/05 700 663 649 729 695 722 717 781 804 837 849 836 875 9,857

Langston Hughes 74 71 82 74 93 87 481 2005/06 650 742 661 640 735 703 697 743 771 818 850 869 785 9,664

New York 39 28 38 31 36 37 209 2006/07 750 690 745 669 624 747 707 738 749 808 848 880 878 9,833

Pinckney 36 35 24 39 24 40 198 2007/08 710 792 688 726 663 623 706 745 773 772 788 809 729 9,524

Prairie Park 75 67 73 55 54 58 382 2008/09 729 747 794 690 749 671 641 742 746 812 761 768 727 9,577

Quail Run 78 70 84 81 80 83 476 2009/10 716 772 745 785 693 734 671 710 762 742 829 732 709 9,600

Schwegler 75 68 57 55 41 59 355 2010/11 693 776 772 744 782 695 731 727 692 750 771 811 665 9,609

Sunflower 75 57 82 69 74 82 439 2011/12 790 728 775 781 749 787 710 789 737 719 757 755 767 9,844

Sunset Hill 71 60 56 66 72 65 390 2012/13 808 849 747 787 787 751 818 738 789 764 712 759 729 10,038

Woodlawn 34 37 27 47 28 39 212 2013/14 856 836 835 755 774 800 735 859 753 799 758 732 758 10,250

Total 808 728 786 778 740 802 4,642 2014/15 781 862 816 822 742 773 807 760 852 768 810 757 667 10,217

2015/16 850 773 822 821 824 739 812 830 778 894 789 808 736 10,476

2016/17 780 847 761 831 820 821 733 800 813 835 892 794 822 10,549

MS Building Level Projection (Transfers Included) 2017/18 804 771 849 764 824 822 824 740 810 882 826 874 777 10,567

Middle School 6th 7th 8th Total 2018/19 822 832 786 838 765 844 816 820 755 889 881 802 850 10,700

Liberty Memorial Central 166 188 166 520 2019/20 732 795 785 757 799 750 802 821 810 821 880 855 789 10,396

Billy Mills Middle 189 176 190 555 2020/21 Midpoint Proj 808 728 786 778 740 802 740 804 827 880 816 859 843 10,411

Southwest Middle 195 208 225 628

West Middle 190 232 246 668 Projection Check and Balance

Total 740 804 827 2,371 Item K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th K-12 Total

K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

Proj growth previous year 76.0 -4.0 -9.0 -7.0 -17.0 3.0 -10.0 2.0 6.0 70.0 -5.0 -21.0 -12.0 72.0

HS Building Level Projection (Transfers Included) Proj cohort change by grade -76.0 -80.0 58.0 -8.0 -38.0 62.0 -62.0 64.0 23.0 53.0 -64.0 43.0 -16.0 -41.0

High School 9th 10th 11th 12th Total 3 Yr Avg Cohort change -16.0 -2.7 -10.0 -12.3 -15.0 2.3 -15.0 2.7 5.0 71.3 -6.3 -22.7 -18.0 -36.7

Free State High 462 438 477 450 1,827 3 Yr Wgt Avg Cohort Change -35.0 -5.7 -18.2 -17.7 -20.3 -0.5 -22.5 2.3 1.7 70.8 -6.3 -24.0 -17.3 -92.7

Lawrence High 418 378 382 393 1,571

Total 880 816 859 843 3,398 District Level Projection (Transfers Included)

Grade Level K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th K-12 Total

Elementary School 808 728 786 778 740 802 4,642

Middle School 740 804 827 2,371

High School 880 816 859 843 3,398

Source: RSP & Associates, LLC Statistical Forecast Model 2019/20 Total Enrollment 10,411

52

Part FourMoving Forward

53

Next StepsThe following items will assist the district advance its educational goals;

⚫ District administration and the Board of Education should further study the enrollment, demographic, and development informationpresented (Enrollment had been projected to increase, but the pandemic resulted in a decline from 2019/20.)

⚫ Utilize the enrollment model to assist with planning for staffing need at each facility for the following school year which will address how quickly areas are “Regreening”, the establishment of new developments, and the impact of future enrollment

⚫ The type of residential development and how affordable it is will determine likely location and number of students (tracking of type of development important to knowing the impact of those trends)

⚫ Create a plan to address the capacity issues of underutilized buildings (District is projected to stay under capacity)

o Examine elementary enrollment to better balance the distribution of kids

o 11 of 14 elementary schools that are under 85% building capacity – overall 2020/21 district elementary capacity is 69.3%

o Quail Run is the only school exceeding its building capacity

o Monitor the student yield rate (new development isn’t necessarily producing the same number of students)

o Determine if there needs to be a better distribution of high school students (approximately 300 more students at Free State HS)

o Virtual learning options may decrease enrollment, where are these student choosing to attend ( homeschool, private school, nearby districts)

⚫ RSP Enrollment forecasting is based on the best-known information at the time. COVID-19 has presented a challenge as it is unknown how this event may impact enrollment, demographics, and development trends in each individual school district. RSP has started with some of the short-term knowns to include social distancing and people working more from home environments, school closures, and no clear timeline for this pandemic to work its way through our communities. As a result, the RSP forecast may indicate some short-term decrease in residential development activity and economic uncertainty for the next year to 18 months. RSP is hopeful a cure, change in season, or other solution happens to decrease the potential negative outcomes and as such recommends our school district clientscollaborate with RSP prior to the school year to best plan for the changes happening in your district.

⚫ Highly recommended to annually monitor the impact of future educational programming that will be integrated into each facility to ensure equitable and appropriate space is utilized in the building which will experience enrollment change (Emerging trends and demographic change)

o Future staffing, building, and/or attendance area changes will require utilizing the latest enrollment analysis

54

Notes_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Planning for the Future - BoardDocs, a Diligent Brand

Documents

Transcript of Planning for the Future - BoardDocs, a Diligent Brand