Reassignment committee meeting feb 13 - draft2
-
Upload
nash-rocky-mount-public-schools -
Category
Education
-
view
2.711 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Reassignment committee meeting feb 13 - draft2
Student Reassignment Committee
Meeting
Monday, February 13, 20124:00 p.m.
Understanding the Optimization
Process
District Reassignment Committee
3
AGENDASTUDENT REASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Media Center, Nash Central High SchoolMonday, February 13, 2012
4:00 Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of the Minutes from the January 30, Committee Organizational Meeting
Committee Operating Procedures
Understanding the Optimization ProcessMike Miller ORED
Report to School Board 2/27/12
Questions
Next Meeting Out of Capacity table and Scenario Data
Monday, March 266:00
Communications
Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools
COMMUNICATIONS Transparent Lines of Communications Committee Meetings
Open to the public Website
Information posted immediately after each meeting E-mail/ Phone Line
An e-mail address to answer questions/ receive feedback etc has been established to ensure seamless communication and to make all information readily available to the public.
A phone line has been established for those with limited or no internet access to provide feedback to the committee.
6
PROPOSED TIME-LINE
Jan-Aug 2012
Committee Deliberations/
Monthly Reports to the School
Board
Aug - 2012Committee
Recommendations Presented to
the School Board
Aug – Dec 2012
Public Input/ Community Engagement
Board of Education Approval
August 2013Implementati
on
7
PROCESS IS EVERYTHING
Board of
Education
Community Feedback
Committee
Committee Chairs
Public Engagement
Technical Support
OREDStaff
8
Contiguous boundaries: Attempt to maintain contiguous school boundaries without using satellite
attendance areas.
Respect neighborhoods: Avoid dividing easily recognized “neighborhoods” or identified
“developments” or “sub- divisions” unless it is necessary to meet other guidelines. Whenever possible and practical use major highways, railroads, rivers, and streams as natural boundaries.
Proximity to schools: While it is recognized that all students cannot be assigned to their closest
school, consider students proximity to other schools when creating school boundaries.
School Board Priorities
9
School Board Priorities
Modify feeder systems: In order to maximize facility use and establish reasonable numbers of students at each site,
consider the use of 6 middle school feeder systems instead of 5. This would allow smaller, more instructionally suited middle schools and less dependence on mobile classrooms.
Stay within enrollment capacities: Unless it is likely that a school enrollment will be declining, assign students to the four high
schools in a way that their enrollments are under established capacities.
Consider anticipated growth: Enrollment growth patterns should be taken into consideration, where feasible, to ensure
that anticipated growth will not adversely impact one school significantly more than the others.
Enrollment balance: In keeping with the intent of SB612, attempt to balance the percentage of academic and
economic populations at each middle and high school.
IPSAC – Timeline
10
February 13 – Understanding the Optimization Process
March 26 – Out of Capacity table and Scenario Data
April 30 – Scenario Review and Revision
May 29 – Scenario Review and Revision
June 25 – Final Scenario Presentation
Integrated Planning For School and Community
Michael Miller, Program ManagerOperations Research and Education Laboratory (OREd)Institute for Transportation Research and EducationCentennial CampusNorth Carolina State University
Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools
12
Data Collection/Compilation GIS data▪ Geocoding complete: School years 2006-07,
2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12▪ Planning Segment review: On-going
District membership trends▪ NC DPI ADM for Month-One
School building capacities
IPSAC – Status
13
Planning Segment Review(Using current parcel data and 2011-12 NRMPS boundaries)
Segment boundary after adjustment
Segment boundary before adjustment
14
Membership Trends
+ 7 RLB per year
15
Membership Trends
-310 K-12 per year
16
Membership Trends
Forecast Models: (4,3,2,1) (1,1,1,1) Optimal
17
Membership Trends
(Using Optimal Forecast Model)
18
Membership Trends
Forecast Options:
Flat (Recommended)▪ Capacity Adjustments for Growth Potential
Optimal Forecast Model
19
Gain - HS Zones
K-12 student count
By residence 2008-09 to 2011-
12
20
Gain - ES Zones
K-12 student count
By residence 2008-09 to 2011-
12
21
Membership Trends
Consensus on Forecast Options?
Flat (Recommended)▪ Capacity Adjustments for Growth Potential
Optimal Forecast Model
22
School Building Capacities
Assumptions Current classroom/program
configuration “Brick and Mortar” capacity Functional capacity: 95%
23
School Membership (DPI Month-One ADM) Capacity Utilization
Bailey Elem 641 664 97%
Baskerville Elem 359 427 84%
Benvenue Elem 752 668 113%
Cedar Grove Elem 204 223 91%
Coopers Elem 657 601 109%
Johnson Elem 470 575 82%
Englewood Elem (3-5) 508 508 100%
Hubbard Elem 478 512 93%
Middlesex Elem 357 418 85%
Nashville Elem 734 682 107%
Pope Elem 274 311 88%
Red Oak Elem (K-2) 299 335 89%
Spring Hope Elem 546 542 101%
Swift Creek Elem (3-5) 317 475 67%
Williford Elem 418 581 72%
Winstead Ave. Elem(K-2) 532 625 85%
Total Elementary (K-5) 7546 8147 93%
24
Building Capacities - Elementary
Current stated ES capacity: 8147 Current ES membership: 75468 schools at or above 90% utilization5 schools at or above 100%
utilization37 mobile units (58 teaching
stations/ classrooms) serving 11 of 16 elementary schools.
25
School Membership (DPI Month-One ADM) Capacity Utilization
Nash Central Mid 605 670 90%
Edwards Mid 731 827 88%
Parker Mid 420 557 75%
Red Oak Mid 919 850 108%
Southern Nash Mid 1081 850 127%
Total Middle (6-8) 3756 3754 100%
School Membership (DPI Month-One ADM) Capacity Utilization
Nash Central High 1229 1150 107%
Northern Nash High 1210 1150 105%
Rocky Mount High 1151 1390 83%
Southern Nash High 1260 1068 118%
Total High (9-12) 4850 4758 102%
26
Building Capacities - Middle
Current stated MS capacity: 3754 Current MS membership: 37563 schools at or above 90% utilization2 schools at or above 100%
utilization15 mobile units (28 teaching
stations/ classrooms) serving 4 of 5 middle schools.
27
Building Capacities - High
Current stated HS capacity: 4758 Current HS membership: 48503 schools at or above 100%
utilization16 mobile units (16 teaching
stations/ classrooms) serving 3 of 4 high schools (and Early College High).
28
School Membership (DPI Month-One ADM)
Greene Alt. (6-12) 95
Early College High (9-12) 207
Total 302
Alternative Schools
Early College High currently over-utilized
Alternative Schools not included in reassignment process.
29
IPSAC – Methodology
OPTIMIZATION
30
Operations Research techniques enable users to solve large-scale optimization problems involving many variables and constraints.
The driving variable in the optimization algorithm is total distance traveled by students to school. The solutions generated by these OR techniques are optimal in the following way:
the system-wide student travel distance is minimized while satisfying constraints such as
building capacity
IPSAC – Methodology
31
Optimization of Attendance Boundaries
OR techniques allow the exploration of holistic scenarios that can provide maximum efficiency for the entire district.
Membership forecast
School building
capacities
Optimization Algorithm
Optimal Attendance Zones
Optimal Attendance Zones
Balance index allowance (Aggregate measure)
32
The optimization process examines multiple school site/assignment schemes and continually re-calculates the constraint variables for each school in the impacted area...
Ultimately determining the optimal school site/assignment that will:
1. Minimize transportation costs
and 2. Satisfy the constraints
within the impact area.
Optimal scenarios can be then fine-tuned by staff to address transportation and other issues.
35
Located southeast of Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, Johnston County NC has experienced tremendous growth over the last two decades. As an OREd client since 1990, Johnston County Schools have used the data-driven planning tools in IPSAC to locate new school sites and draw attendance zones to accommodate and increasing student population.
In 2010, JCS opened two new high schools – the culmination of years of careful planning and hard work.
IPSAC Case Study: Johnston County Schools
38
Utilization/Capacity
Demographic Balance
Proximity
Feeder Pattern
IPSAC – Methodology
Proximity + Capacity Scenario(example)
Impact AreaES-LevelProficiency indexmin: 35%max: 78%
Proximity + Capacity + Proficiency Scenario(example)
Impact AreaES-LevelProficiency indexmin: 53%max: 70%
41
Utilization/Capacity
Demographic Balance
Proximity
Feeder Pattern
IPSAC – Methodology
42
Summary
Data Consensus on Membership Forecast School Building Capacities – Current status
Optimization Holistic - Considers entire system Always minimizes student travel distance,
given policy-driven conditions on:▪ Utilization▪ Feeder patterns▪ Balance
Communications
Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools
COMMUNICATIONS Transparent Lines of Communications Committee Meetings
Open to the public Website
Information posted immediately after each meeting E-mail/ Phone Line
An e-mail address to answer questions/ receive feedback etc has been established to ensure seamless communication and to make all information readily available to the public.
A phone line has been established for those with limited or no internet access to provide feedback to the committee.
MEETING SCHEDULE
February13 – (4:00-5:30)*
March26 (6:00)
April
30 (6:00)
May29 (6:00)
June
25 (4:00–5:30)*
August/ Sept TBD
QUESTIONS