Reassignment committee meeting   feb 13 - draft2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Reassignment committee meeting feb 13 - draft2

on

  • 2,946 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,946
Views on SlideShare
749
Embed Views
2,197

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

5 Embeds 2,197

http://www.nrms.k12.nc.us 2020
http://nrms.schoolwires.net 133
http://nrms.k12.nc.us 41
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 2
http://207.46.192.232 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Reassignment committee meeting   feb 13 - draft2 Reassignment committee meeting feb 13 - draft2 Presentation Transcript

  • STUDENT REASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Media Center, Nash Central High School Monday, February 13, 2012 4:00Call to OrderRoll Call Approval of the Minutes from the January 30, Committee Organizational MeetingCommittee Operating Procedures Understanding the Optimization Process Mike Miller OREDReport to School Board 2/27/12Questions Next Meeting Out of Capacity table and Scenario Data Monday, March 26 6:00 3
  • Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools
  •  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.
  • 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 6
  • Public Engagement Board of Education Committee Chairs Technical SupportCommunity Committee Feedback ORED Staff 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. 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. 9
  •  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 10
  • Michael Miller, Program ManagerOperations Research and Education Laboratory (OREd)Institute for Transportation Research and EducationCentennial CampusNorth Carolina State University Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools
  •  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 12
  • Planning SegmentReview(Using current parcel data and2011-12 NRMPS boundaries) Segment boundary before adjustment Segment boundary after adjustment 13
  • + 7 RLB per year 14
  • -310 K-12 per year 15
  • Forecast Models: (4,3,2,1) (1,1,1,1) Optimal 16
  • (Using Optimal Forecast Model) 17
  •  Forecast Options:  Flat (Recommended) ▪ Capacity Adjustments for Growth Potential  Optimal Forecast Model 18
  • Gain - HS Zones K-12 student count By residence 2008-09 to 2011-12 19
  • Gain - ES Zones K-12 student count By residence 2008-09 to 2011-12 20
  • Consensus on Forecast Options? Flat (Recommended) ▪ Capacity Adjustments for Growth Potential Optimal Forecast Model 21
  •  Assumptions  Current classroom/program configuration  “Brick and Mortar” capacity  Functional capacity: 95% 22
  • Membership (DPI Month- School Capacity Utilization One ADM)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% 23
  •  Current stated ES capacity: 8147 Current ES membership: 7546 8 schools at or above 90% utilization 5 schools at or above 100% utilization 37 mobile units (58 teaching stations/ classrooms) serving 11 of 16 elementary schools. 24
  • Membership (DPI Month- School Capacity Utilization One ADM)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% Membership (DPI Month- School Capacity Utilization One ADM)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% 25
  •  Current stated MS capacity: 3754 Current MS membership: 3756 3 schools at or above 90% utilization 2 schools at or above 100% utilization 15 mobile units (28 teaching stations/ classrooms) serving 4 of 5 middle schools. 26
  •  Current stated HS capacity: 4758 Current HS membership: 4850 3 schools at or above 100% utilization 16 mobile units (16 teaching stations/ classrooms) serving 3 of 4 high schools (and Early College High). 27
  • Membership (DPI Month- School One ADM)Greene Alt. (6-12) 95Early College High (9-12) 207Total 302 Alternative Schools  Early College High currently over-utilized  Alternative Schools not included in reassignment process. 28
  • OPTIMIZATION 29
  • Operations Research techniques enable users to solve large-scale optimization problems involving many variables andconstraints.The driving variable in the optimization algorithm is totaldistance traveled by students to school. The solutionsgenerated by these OR techniques are optimal in the followingway: the system-wide student travel distance is minimized while satisfying constraints such as building capacity 30
  • OR techniques allow theexploration of holisticscenarios that can providemaximum efficiency forthe entire district. 31
  • Optimal Attendance Zones School Balance indexMembership building allowance forecast capacities (Aggregate measure) Optimization Algorithm Optimal Attendance Zones 32
  • The optimization processexamines multiple schoolsite/assignment schemesand continually re-calculatesthe constraint variables foreach school in the impactedarea...
  • Ultimately determining theoptimal school site/assignmentthat will:1. Minimize transportation costs and2. Satisfy the constraintswithin the impact area.Optimal scenarios can be thenfine-tuned by staff to addresstransportation and other issues.
  • Located southeast of Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, JohnstonCounty NC has experienced tremendous growth over the lasttwo decades. As an OREd client since 1990, Johnston CountySchools have used the data-driven planning tools in IPSAC tolocate new school sites and draw attendance zones toaccommodate and increasing student population.In 2010, JCS opened two new high schools – the culmination ofyears of careful planning and hard work. 35
  • Utilization/CapacityDemographic Proximity Balance Feeder Pattern 38
  • Proximity + Capacity Scenario(example) Impact Area ES-Level Proficiency index min: 35% max: 78%
  • Proximity + Capacity + Proficiency Scenario(example) Impact Area ES-Level Proficiency index min: 53% max: 70%
  • Utilization/CapacityDemographic Proximity Balance Feeder Pattern 41
  •  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 42
  • Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools
  •  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.
  • February13 – (4:00-5:30)* March26 (6:00) April 30 (6:00) May 29 (6:00) June25 (4:00–5:30)* August/ Sept TBD
  • QUESTIONS