2014 E-12 Task Force Recommendation to School Board, June 19

  • 40,333 views
Uploaded on

Presentation slides prepared by co-leaders of the E-8 Capacity Task Force and High School Task Force for June 19, 2014 School Board meeting

Presentation slides prepared by co-leaders of the E-8 Capacity Task Force and High School Task Force for June 19, 2014 School Board meeting

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
40,333
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. E-8 AND HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION June 19th, 2014
  • 2. RESPONSIBILITIES  Report to the school board on an on-going basis  Review all pertinent data  Seek public, staff, and student input prior to making a recommendation to the school board  Provide communication updates for district dispersal  Evaluate options  Prepare a final recommendation to the school board
  • 3. GUIDELINES  Optimize building space  Ensure program equity  Sustainable student attendance boundaries for the next five to ten years unless there is a significant enrollment loss or gain versus current projections  Boundary changes would be considered in light of pre- school, elementary, middle and high school capacity discussions and potential recommendations  Balance demographics  Optimize learning by balancing enrollment to prevent overcrowding and large class sizes  Consider safety, transportation, and costs when developing recommendations for consideration
  • 4. BOARD REPORT SPRING 2013  Discussed work to date  Agreed that we need a new demographic study  Believed we should wait to proceed until we have more data  Teams agreed to resume when new information available
  • 5. DATA COLLECTED AND CONSIDERED
  • 6. HOUSING AND ENROLLMENT STUDY FROM OCTOBER 2011  2011 projection showed flat enrollment  Over course of 2012-13 school year, communities experienced an increase in housing permits
  • 7. RICKABAUGH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORT FROM APRIL 2012  50 students at each school, 46 Chaska community members, 28 Chanhassen community members  Chan. HS students (pg. 4): Absence of the diversity at Chaska HS results in educational disadvantage for students (at Chan).  Chaska HS parents (page 11) “Create better demographic balance between the high schools, possibly through boundary changes.”  Chan. HS parents (page 12) “Consider strategies to better balance diversity present in both student bodies.”  Chan. HS staff (page 13) “Absence of diversity is an important missing element.”  Question from Community Engagement meetings: “Are the differences between the high schools of the magnitude that the School Board should consider options to address the differences?”  Chanhassen HS: Yes 19% No 81%  Chaska HS: Yes 80% No 20%
  • 8. FACILITIES STUDY FROM SEPTEMBER 2012  Determined facility needs and uses  Meetings/interviews were held with school leadership teams  Determined construction and program capacities for each building
  • 9. DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY ANALYSIS DECEMBER 2013  Hazel Reinhardt reported the following:  Cohort Survival Method projects K-12 decline ranging from 86 to 329 students by 2018-19  Housing Starts Method projects K-5 increase of 782 students by 2018-19  Housing Starts Method projects additional 205 students 6-8, and 205 students 9-12  District developed hybrid model  Combined high estimate of Cohort Survival Method and moderate housing starts  Conservative estimate of 400 K-5 students by 2018- 19
  • 10. CITY PLANNERS MEETING – JANUARY 2014  City officials from all four communities were invited to Jan. 8 task force meeting to share city housing development and growth projections.  All four communities have housing projects underway.  Task force members were able to see where new housing development is occurring.
  • 11. MORRIS LEATHERMAN ATTENDANCE BOUNDARY SURVEY FROM JANUARY 2014  Scientific, random sampling of community  Results indicated significant community support to equalize:  Enrollment  Demographics  Balance diversity and socio-economics  Programming
  • 12. ESTIMATED SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS THROUGH 2018-2019 FOR EACH LEVEL 2013-14 Proj. Elementary: 4,087 4,621 Middle: 2,128 2,133 High: 3,031 3,027 Total: 9,246 9,781
  • 13. THREE CONCEPTS WERE DEVELOPED AND COMMUNICATED TO GATHER FEEDBACK
  • 14. CRAM  The cram option tries to fit elementary growth into any and all elementary school space.  This option would require extensive boundary changes.  Neighborhood schools would be ignored in order to bus students to wherever there is space.  It would require increases in class sizes. Once a building reaches capacity, the only way to fit in more students is to make each class larger.  It is the least expensive option. It relies on existing busing and buildings without additional leases or construction.
  • 15. SHUFFLE  Another option is to shuffle grade levels.  Moving all 5th grade into middle school buildings or moving 8th grade into the high schools would end up overcrowding the middle and high schools.  In order to affect the least number of families, the recommendation would be to move 5th grade out of schools that are most crowded and into middle schools.  This option is a short-term fix. Eventually, schools will be at or over capacity again.  This option allows for better management of class sizes.  This also is less expensive, however some renovations or equipment purchases may be necessary to accommodate students who move.
  • 16. BUILD  Build elementary school and 12 elementary classrooms  The additional classrooms are needed because with 400 to 700 new elementary students, a new school may be near capacity when it opens  There would be a process to set boundaries for the all schools including elementary, middle and high schools.
  • 17. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK  May 19, Chanhassen HS: 24 community members  May 28, Chaska HS: 27 community members  May 29, Virtual Meeting: 22 Listeners, 1 email feedback@district112.org
  • 18. FEEDBACK SUMMARIZED AND CONSIDERED  Most Common Themes  Support for a new elementary school  Most favor a long term solution  Limit transitions for students  Prefer Cram option over Shuffle  District needs to be clear about its commitment to La Academia  La Academia wants to stay together as a program and needs its own space
  • 19. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
  • 20. RECOMMEND BUILD OPTION  Add a 650+ student elementary school  Add up to 12 elementary classrooms to existing sites to be determined based on need  Provides long-term solutions  Reduces frequency of student transitions
  • 21. RECOMMEND BUILD OPTION  Need a clear plan for La Academia  Without additional space, short-term and long-term recommendation is to cram  Increase class sizes  Change boundaries  Do not change grade configurations – community feedback preferred cram over shuffle
  • 22. CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE SCHOOL BOARD FACILITIES COMMITTEE
  • 23. 2014-2015  Keep existing boundaries and monitor new construction in overcrowded elementary school boundaries to determine if students are too many  Cram as much as possible  If not possible to cram, direct new construction / new families to lower enrollment schools  Clover Ridge K stays at K Center  La Academia stays at K Center  Family Learning Center stays at Chaska HS
  • 24. 2015-2016  Keep existing boundaries and monitor new construction in overcrowded elementary school boundaries to determine if students are too many  Cram as much as possible  If not possible to cram, direct new construction / new families to lower enrollment schools  Referendum – ask question  Communicate clear picture of referendum success and alternative if referendum is not approved  Family Learning Center moves to K Center  Clover Ridge K stays at K Center
  • 25. 2015-2016CONTINUED  Other decisions to be made  Pioneer Ridge MS needs enrollment  La Academia needs location  Preference is to keep entire program together  Kinder Academy location to be determined if space at K Center is not available  Initiate boundary planning if referendum passes  When considering boundaries address questions students and families will have including..  Will siblings stay together?  Would you grandfather students at current schools?  Would open enrollment be available?
  • 26. 2016-2017  If referendum passes, classrooms will not be available, maintain interim plans  Keep existing boundaries and monitor new construction in overcrowded elementary school boundaries to determine if students are too many  Cram as much as possible  If not possible to cram, direct new construction to lower enrollment schools  Clover Ridge K stays at K Center
  • 27. 2016-2017CONTINUED  Kinder Academy stays at location determined in 15-16  La Academia stays at location determined in 15-16  Finalize boundaries for fall 17/18 with actual student numbers  Communicate to public anticipated practices for school enrollments once new boundaries are established.
  • 28. 2017-2018  Open new elementary school  Open new classrooms  La Academia moves to permanent location  Consider moving Clover Ridge K back to Clover Ridge  Determine permanent location for Kinder Academy  Implement new boundaries for all
  • 29. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS