Reassignment committee meeting - June 25, 201 june 25
-
Upload
nash-rocky-mount-public-schools -
Category
Education
-
view
220 -
download
2
Transcript of Reassignment committee meeting - June 25, 201 june 25
Student Reassignment Committee
Meeting Monday, June 25, 2012
4:00 p.m.
Final (?) Scenario Presentation
District Reassignment Committee
Meeting
3
AGENDASTUDENT REASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Media Center, Nash Central High SchoolMonday, June 25, 2012 - 4:00 pm
Call to Order……………………………………………………………………Victor Ward
Roll Call………………………………………………………………………..Carina Bryant
Approval of Minutes from the June 12, 2012 Meeting Committee Operating Procedure Scenario Review and Revision………………………………Mike Miller,
OREd Report to School Board 6/25/12 Questions?
Next Meeting Scenario Discussion
???6:00 pm
Communications
Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools
5
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 2013Implementatio
n
6
PROCESS IS EVERYTHING
Board of Education
Community Feedback Committee
Committee Chairs
Public Engagement
Technical Support
OREDStaff
7
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
8
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.
School Board Priorities
9
IPSAC – Timeline
February 13 – Understanding the Optimization ProcessMarch 26 – Out of Capacity table and Scenario Data
April 30 – Scenario Review and Revision
May 29 – Scenario Review and Revision (cont.)
June 12 – Scenario Review and Revision (cont.)
June 25 – Final (?) Scenario Presentation
TransparentLines of CommunicationsCommittee Meetings
Open to the publicWebsite
Information posted immediately after each meetingE-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.
COMMUNICATIONS
11
Mike Miller, OREd
Final (?) Scenario Presentation
Middle School ScenariosClean feeder to HSBased on Scenario HS 02, Rev. 1Parker as 6th grade center for RM school(s)2 options
Elementary School ScenarioMinor adjustments to current zonesInformed by optimal scenario ES 01 (Proximity +
Utilization)Relief for Benvenue (currently at 111%)
IPSAC – Status
12
Free/Reduced Lunch – percentage of impacted population eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch . Data supplied in aggregate form by NRMPS, calculated across K-12.
Academic Proficiency – percentage of impacted population scoring Proficient in both Reading and Math. Data supplied by NRMPS, calculated across grades 3-8.
Minority – percentage of non-white impacted population . Data obtained from NCWISE download, calculated by level (E/M/H)
Data represented in aggregate form only as percentage of school population.
13
Clarification: Student Balance Metrics
Metrics measure current student demographics by residence.
Metrics are used as planning tool for demographic balance.
Metrics are not intended as a forecast of future school demographics/performance.
14
Clarification: Student Balance Metrics
REVIEW: High School Attendance ZonesScenario HS 02, Rev. 1
IMPACT + FEEDERMaximum Utilization: 107% (NNHS, currently
105%)
Minimum Utilization: 98%Total Grade 9-12 students reassigned:
736
CURRENT HIGH SCHOOLHIGH SCHOOL SCENARIO HS 02 – REV. 1
Scenario Review – High Schools
Middle School Attendance ZonesCurrent/MS 03, Rev. 1/MS 04, Rev. 1 Data
(See data tables in handout.)
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash NEW MS (RM HS site)
CURRENT 729 633 433 910 1099 0
IMPACT + METRICS (MS 03, Rev. 1)
448 614 483 885 946 428
IMPACT + METRICS (MS 04, Rev. 1)
558 614 279 885 946 522
100
300
500
700
900
1100
6-8 Student Count
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash NEW MS (RM HS site)
CURRENT 0.881499395405079
0.944776119402985
0.77737881508079
1.07058823529412
1.29294117647059
0
IMPACT + METRICS (MS 03, Rev. 1)
0.597333333333333
0.916417910447761
0.867145421903052
1.04117647058824
1.11294117647059
0.570666666666667
IMPACT + METRICS (MS 04, Rev. 1)
0.744 0.916417910447761
0.500897666068223
1.04117647058824
1.11294117647059
0.696
10%
50%
90%
130%
Utilization
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash NEW MS (RM HS site)
CURRENT 0.781893004115226
0.669826224328595
0.877598152424942
0.585714285714285
0.51410373066424
0
IMPACT + METRICS (MS 03, Rev. 1)
0.758670520231214
0.49520766773163
0.86 0.563758389261745
0.53755364806867
0.957575757575758
IMPACT + METRICS (MS 04, Rev. 1)
0.804308797127469
0.49520766773163
0.891823899371069
0.563758389261745
0.53755364806867
0.891823899371069
10%
50%
90%
Minority %
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash NEW MS (RM HS site)
CURRENT 0.728409448818898
0.679363699582754
0.7765 0.581846153846154
0.64117389298893
0
IMPACT + METRICS (MS 03, Rev. 1)
0.715378123985719
0.544407753050969
0.77 0.5733342154009 0.66889689578714
0.860302497361942
IMPACT + METRICS (MS 04, Rev. 1)
0.744224172317511
0.544407753050969
0.814793678665497
0.5733342154009 0.66889689578714
0.814793678665497
5%
35%
65%
95%
Free/Reduced Lunch %
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash NEW MS (RM HS site)
CURRENT 0.511127063890883
0.541571319603356
0.551357733175915
0.685584562996595
0.631374453618262
0
IMPACT + METRICS (MS 03, Rev. 1)
0.501789549033644
0.676159479251424
0.48 0.687109596819989
0.624854819976772
0.458432304038005
IMPACT + METRICS (MS 04, Rev. 1)
0.460742018981881
0.676159479251424
0.497001998667555
0.687109596819989
0.624854819976772
0.497001998667555
5%15%25%35%45%55%65%75%
Academic Proficiency %
Middle School Attendance ZonesCurrent/MS 03, Rev. 1/MS 04, Rev. 1 Data
Maximum Utilization: 111% (SNMS, currently 129%)
Minimum Utilization: 50% (Parker, MS 04 Rev.1, currently 78%)
All clean feeder to High Schools except Edwards split to NCHS and RMHS
Total Grade 6-8 students reassignedMS 03, Rev. 1: 1093 (~ 350 to New MS)
MS 04, Rev. 1: 1221 (~ 510 to New MS)
CURRENT MIDDLE SCHOOLMIDDLE SCHOOL SCENARIO MS 03, REV. 1
Scenario Review – Middle Schools
CURRENT MIDDLE SCHOOLMIDDLE SCHOOL SCENARIO MS 04, REV. 1
Scenario Review – Middle Schools
Elementary School Attendance ZonesCurrent/ES 01, Rev. 2
(See data tables in handout.)
Bailey Baskerville
Benv-enue
Cedar Grove
Coop-ers
Johnson MB Hub-bard
Middle-sex
Nash-ville
Pope Red Oak/Swift Creek
Spring Hope
Willi-ford
Win-stead/Engle-wood
CUR-RENT
620 341 743 221 624 475 492 340 709 279 583 550 437 1081
UTIL + IMPACT (ES 01, Rev. 2)
620 341 625 221 624 452 492 340 625 302 673 550 557 1073
100300500700900
1100
K-5 Student Count
Bailey Baskerville
Benv-enue
Cedar Grove
Coop-ers
Johnson MB Hub-bard
Middle-sex
Nash-ville
Pope Red Oak/Swift Creek
Spring Hope
Willi-ford
Win-stead/Engle-wood
CURRENT
0.933734939759036
0.798594847775176
1.11227544910
18
0.991031390134529
1.03826955074
875
0.826086956521739
0.9609375
0.813397129186603
1.03958944281
525
0.897106109324759
0.719753086419753
1.01476014760
148
0.752151462994837
0.954104148278906
UTIL + IM-PACT (ES 01, Rev. 2)
0.933734939759036
0.798594847775176
0.935628742514971
0.991031390134529
1.03826955074
875
0.786086956521739
0.9609375
0.813397129186603
0.916422287390029
0.971061093247589
0.830864197530864
1.01476014760
148
0.95869191049
914
0.947043248014122
10%
50%
90%
Utilization
Bailey Baskerville
Benv-enue
Cedar Grove
Coop-ers
Johnson MB Hub-bard
Middle-sex
Nash-ville
Pope Red Oak/Swift Creek
Spring Hope
Willi-ford
Win-stead/Engle-wood
CURRENT
0.65483870967
742
0.982404692082112
0.737550471063257
0.520361990950226
0.307692307692308
0.995789473684211
0.780487804878049
0.588235294117647
0.493653032440056
0.989247311827957
0.437392795883362
0.514545454545455
0.965675057208238
0.640148011100833
UTIL + IM-PACT (ES 01, Rev. 2)
0.65483870967
742
0.982404692082112
0.7088 0.520361990950226
0.307692307692308
0.995575221238938
0.780487804878049
0.588235294117647
0.5024 0.990066225165563
0.432392273402675
0.514545454545455
0.969479353680431
0.632805219012116
10%
50%
90%
Minority %
Bailey Baskerville
Benv-enue
Cedar Grove
Coop-ers
Johnson MB Hub-bard
Middle-sex
Nash-ville
Pope Red Oak/Swift Creek
Spring Hope
Willi-ford
Win-stead/Engle-wood
CURRENT
0.709450714823175
0.936566265060241
0.684589625738674
0.728067729083666
0.467428797468355
0.909124378109453
0.703311320754717
0.702206266318538
0.520635430038511
0.907741433021807
0.456706210746685
0.650129659643437
0.922113163972286
0.593824966681475
UTIL + IM-PACT (ES 01, Rev. 2)
0.709450714823175
0.936566265060241
0.651562264150943
0.728067729083666
0.467428797468355
0.900571725571726
0.703311320754717
0.702206266318538
0.531272860277981
0.919839416058395
0.455581395348837
0.650129659643437
0.921295097132285
0.590638489208633
5%
35%
65%
95%
Free/Reduced Lunch %
Bailey Baskerville
Benv-enue
Cedar Grove
Coop-ers
Johnson MB Hub-bard
Middle-sex
Nash-ville
Pope Red Oak/Swift Creek
Spring Hope
Willi-ford
Win-stead/Engle-wood
CURRENT
0.618270799347472
0.450657894736842
0.629283489096573
0.731707317073171
0.729636048526863
0.377232142857143
0.575692963752665
0.61307901907
357
0.705801104972376
0.348122866894198
0.721815519765739
0.601973684210527
0.348448687350836
0.606741573033708
UTIL + IM-PACT (ES 01, Rev. 2)
0.618270799347472
0.450657894736842
0.652877697841727
0.731707317073171
0.729636048526863
0.375291375291375
0.575692963752665
0.61307901907
357
0.69375 0.352564102564103
0.730569948186529
0.601973684210527
0.351816443594647
0.620292887029289
5%25%45%65%
Academic Proficiency %
Maximum Utilization: 104% (Coopers, currently 104%)
Minimum Utilization: 79% (Johnson, currently 83%)
Total Grade K-5 students reassigned: 363
Elementary School Attendance ZonesCurrent/ES 01, Rev. 2
CURRENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCENARIO ES 01, REV.2
Scenario Review – Elementary Schools
Summary
Middle School Scenarios: Impact + Metrics5 MS feeding 4 HSScenario MS 03, Rev. 1: Parker – 6th grade center
for New MS and EdwardsScenario MS 04, Rev. 1: Parker – 6th grade center
for New MSClean feeder to HS, except for EdwardsTotal Grade 6-8 students reassigned: 1093 – 1221
Elementary School Scenario: Utilization + ImpactOptimal Scenario ES 01, Rev. 2Total Grade K-5 students reassigned: 363
28
29
Proximity + Utilization
Optimal Scenarios
Review/ Revise
Review/ Revise
Optimal Scenarios
Review/ Revise
Review/ Revise
Impact + Feeder
February 13 (4:00-5:30)
March 26 (6:00)
April 30 (6:00)
May 29 (6:00)
June 12 (6:00)
Tuesday June 25 (4:00–5:30)
July/August - TBD
MEETING SCHEDULE
QUESTIONS