STUDENT REASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE MEETING             Media Center, Nash Central High School                Monday, April 30,...
Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools
Jan-Aug 2012         Aug - 2012         Aug – Dec 2012            August 2013    Committee           Committee        Publ...
Board of             Public Engagement            Education            Committee Chairs                               Tech...
Contiguous boundaries:   Attempt to maintain contiguous school boundaries without using    satellite attendance areas.R...
Modify feeder systems:   In order to maximize facility use and establish reasonable numbers of students at each    site,...
 February 13 – Understanding the Optimization  Process March 26 – Out of Capacity table and Scenario Data April 30 – Sc...
 Transparent Lines of Communications Committee Meetings   Open to the public Website   Information posted immediatel...
Mike Miller, OREd                    11
Nash-Rocky Mount Public SchoolsMichael Miller, Program ManagerOperations Research and Education Laboratory (OREd)Institute...
 Optimal Scenarios   Optimal scenarios for each level: Elem, Mid, High      Scenario data presented at March 26 meeting...
Optimal Attendance Zones                 SchoolMembership      building    Balance index forecast      capacities    allow...
Scenario Review/Revision Cycle Optimal Attendance ZonesScenario Review                            Track Edits &           ...
Assignment Change Considerations: Elem > Mid and Mid > High feeder pattern Contiguity Transportation issues Natural/ma...
Assignment change fixestransportation issue, butmay impact other criteria.17
18
19
CURRENT HIGH SCHOOL   OPTIMAL HIGH SCHOOL                                            20
OPTIMAL HIGH SCHOOL   OPTIMAL HIGH SCHOOL - REVISED                                                      21
9-12 Student Count              1600              1400              1200              1000               800              ...
Statistics based on residence (2011 geocode).Does not measure impact of specialprograms such as IB.                       ...
Statistics based on residence (2011 geocode).Does not measure impact of specialprograms such as IB.                       ...
 Maximum Utilization: 104% Minimum Utilization: 97% Total Grade 9-12 students reassigned: 1356
CURRENT MIDDLE SCHOOL   OPTIMAL MIDDLE SCHOOL                                                26
OPTIMAL MIDDLE SCHOOL   OPTIMAL MIDDLE SCHOOL - REVISED                                                          27
6-8 Student Count              1200              1000               800               600               400               ...
Target Middle School capacity = 750.                                                                 Parker capacity = 557...
Free/Reduced Lunch %               90%               80%               70%               60%               50%            ...
 Maximum Utilization: 94% Minimum Utilization: 85% Maximum MS > HS feeder: 3 (New Rocky Mount  MS) Total Grade 6-8 stu...
CURRENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL   OPTIMAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL                                                        32
OPTIMAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL   OPTIMAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - REVISED                                                           ...
K-5 Student Count              1200              1000               800               600               400               ...
Utilization               120%               100%                80%                60%                40%                ...
Free/Reduced Lunch %             100%              90%              80%              70%              60%              50%...
 Maximum Utilization: 101% Minimum Utilization: 81% Maximum MS > HS feeder: 4 (Benvenue ES) Total Grade K-5 students r...
 Scenario Review Process   Planning Segment assignment change protocol Scenario - Revision 1   19 Planning Segments re...
February 13 – (4:00-5:30)*      March 26 (6:00)       April 30 (6:00)Tuesday, May 29 (6:00)    June 25 (4:00–5:30)*    Aug...
QUESTIONS
Reassignment committee meeting   - April 30, 2012
Reassignment committee meeting   - April 30, 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Reassignment committee meeting - April 30, 2012

2,667 views
2,609 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,667
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
595
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Reassignment committee meeting - April 30, 2012

  1. 1. STUDENT REASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Media Center, Nash Central High School Monday, April 30, 2012 - 6:00 pm Call to Order……………………………………………………………………Victor Ward Roll Call………………………………………………………………………..Carina Bryant Approval of Minutes from the March 26, 2012 Meeting Committee Operating Procedure Scenario Review and Revision………………………………Mike Miller, OREd Report to School Board 5/21/12 Questions? Next Meeting Scenario Review and Revision (continued) Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6:00 pm 3
  2. 2. Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools
  3. 3. Jan-Aug 2012 Aug - 2012 Aug – Dec 2012 August 2013 Committee Committee Public Input/ Community Deliberations/ Recommendations Engagement ImplementationMonthly Reports to Presented to the the School Board School Board Board of Education Approval 5
  4. 4. Board of Public Engagement Education Committee Chairs Technical SupportCommunity Feedback Committee ORED Staff 6
  5. 5. 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. 7
  6. 6. 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. 8
  7. 7.  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 9
  8. 8.  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.
  9. 9. Mike Miller, OREd 11
  10. 10. Nash-Rocky Mount Public SchoolsMichael Miller, Program ManagerOperations Research and Education Laboratory (OREd)Institute for Transportation Research and EducationCentennial CampusNorth Carolina State University
  11. 11.  Optimal Scenarios  Optimal scenarios for each level: Elem, Mid, High  Scenario data presented at March 26 meeting  Optimal with respect to Proximity + Utilization  OREd scenario review  Planning segment level review of optimal scenarios  Multiple review criteria  Assignment changes to address geographic issues 13
  12. 12. Optimal Attendance Zones SchoolMembership building Balance index forecast capacities allowance Optimization Algorithm Optimal Attendance Zones 14
  13. 13. Scenario Review/Revision Cycle Optimal Attendance ZonesScenario Review Track Edits & Update School Data 15
  14. 14. Assignment Change Considerations: Elem > Mid and Mid > High feeder pattern Contiguity Transportation issues Natural/man-made barriers Current assignment Capacity 16
  15. 15. Assignment change fixestransportation issue, butmay impact other criteria.17
  16. 16. 18
  17. 17. 19
  18. 18. CURRENT HIGH SCHOOL OPTIMAL HIGH SCHOOL 20
  19. 19. OPTIMAL HIGH SCHOOL OPTIMAL HIGH SCHOOL - REVISED 21
  20. 20. 9-12 Student Count 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern NashCURRENT 1232 1204 1130 1232PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 1145 1201 1416 1036 (See data tables in handouts.)
  21. 21. Statistics based on residence (2011 geocode).Does not measure impact of specialprograms such as IB. Utilization 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash CURRENT 107% 105% 81% 115% PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 100% 104% 102% 97% Minority % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash CURRENT 67% 69% 84% 51% PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 53% 62% 94% 53%
  22. 22. Statistics based on residence (2011 geocode).Does not measure impact of specialprograms such as IB. Free/Reduced Lunch % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash CURRENT 67% 65% 72% 64% PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 50% 59% 86% 67% Academic Proficiency % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash CURRENT 60% 61% 53% 63% PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 71% 68% 42% 62%
  23. 23.  Maximum Utilization: 104% Minimum Utilization: 97% Total Grade 9-12 students reassigned: 1356
  24. 24. CURRENT MIDDLE SCHOOL OPTIMAL MIDDLE SCHOOL 26
  25. 25. OPTIMAL MIDDLE SCHOOL OPTIMAL MIDDLE SCHOOL - REVISED 27
  26. 26. 6-8 Student Count 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 NEW MS (RM HS Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash site)CURRENT 729 633 433 910 1099 0PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 661 639 445 705 695 659 (See data tables in handouts.)
  27. 27. Target Middle School capacity = 750. Parker capacity = 557. Utilization 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% NEW MS (RM HS Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash site)CURRENT 88% 94% 78% 107% 129% 0%PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 88% 85% 80% 94% 93% 88% Minority % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% NEW MS (RM HS Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash site)CURRENT 78% 67% 88% 59% 51% 0%PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 61% 46% 92% 53% 57% 91%
  28. 28. Free/Reduced Lunch % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% NEW MS (RM HS Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash site) CURRENT 73% 68% 78% 58% 64% 0% PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 63% 50% 85% 55% 70% 82% Academic Proficiency % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% NEW MS (RM HS Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash site)CURRENT 51% 54% 55% 69% 63% 0%PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 57% 71% 47% 71% 61% 47%
  29. 29.  Maximum Utilization: 94% Minimum Utilization: 85% Maximum MS > HS feeder: 3 (New Rocky Mount MS) Total Grade 6-8 students reassigned: 1618 (including 659 to New Rocky Mount MS)
  30. 30. CURRENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPTIMAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 32
  31. 31. OPTIMAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPTIMAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - REVISED 33
  32. 32. K-5 Student Count 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Red MB Winstea Baskervi Benven Cedar Middles Nashvill Oak/Sw Spring Willifor Bailey Coopers Johnson Hubbar Pope d/Engle lle ue Grove ex e ift Hope d d wood CreekCURRENT 620 341 743 221 624 475 492 340 709 279 583 550 437 1081PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 620 399 640 214 514 511 477 340 686 304 706 520 575 989 (See data tables in handouts.)
  33. 33. Utilization 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Red MB Winstea Baskervi Benven Cedar Middles Nashvill Oak/Sw Spring Willifor Bailey Coopers Johnson Hubbar Pope d/Engle lle ue Grove ex e ift Hope d d wood Creek CURRENT 93% 80% 111% 99% 104% 83% 96% 81% 104% 90% 72% 101% 75% 95% PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 93% 93% 96% 96% 86% 89% 93% 81% 101% 98% 87% 96% 99% 87% Minority % 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Red MB Winstea Baskervi Benven Cedar Middles Nashvill Oak/Sw Spring Willifor Bailey Coopers Johnson Hubbar Pope d/Engle lle ue Grove ex e ift Hope d d wood CreekCURRENT 65% 98% 74% 52% 31% 100% 78% 59% 49% 99% 44% 51% 97% 64%PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 65% 99% 72% 49% 22% 99% 78% 59% 49% 98% 44% 51% 90% 66%
  34. 34. Free/Reduced Lunch % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Red MB Winstea Baskervi Benven Cedar Middles Nashvill Oak/Sw Spring Willifor Bailey Coopers Johnson Hubbar Pope d/Engle lle ue Grove ex e ift Hope d d wood CreekCURRENT 71% 94% 68% 73% 47% 91% 70% 70% 52% 91% 46% 65% 92% 59%PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 71% 94% 66% 71% 39% 90% 70% 70% 49% 92% 47% 65% 90% 62% Academic Proficiency % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Red MB Winstea Baskervi Benven Cedar Middles Nashvill Oak/Sw Spring Willifor Bailey Coopers Johnson Hubbar Pope d/Engle lle ue Grove ex e ift Hope d d wood CreekCURRENT 62% 45% 63% 73% 73% 38% 58% 61% 71% 35% 72% 60% 35% 61%PROX + UTIL - Rev. 1 62% 47% 65% 75% 78% 36% 58% 61% 70% 36% 72% 60% 38% 60%
  35. 35.  Maximum Utilization: 101% Minimum Utilization: 81% Maximum MS > HS feeder: 4 (Benvenue ES) Total Grade K-5 students reassigned: 1045
  36. 36.  Scenario Review Process  Planning Segment assignment change protocol Scenario - Revision 1  19 Planning Segments reassigned from optimal scenarios  Revision 1 scenario data + maps  Total Grade K-12 students reassigned: 4019 (including 659 to New Rocky Mount MS) 38
  37. 37. February 13 – (4:00-5:30)* March 26 (6:00) April 30 (6:00)Tuesday, May 29 (6:00) June 25 (4:00–5:30)* August/ Sept - TBD
  38. 38. QUESTIONS

×