Reassignment committee meeting january 30 - final-update1-31-12 2

2,935 views
2,850 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
2,935
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2,226
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Reassignment committee meeting january 30 - final-update1-31-12 2

  1. 1. COMMITTEE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING Auditorium, School Administration Building Monday, January 30, 2012 6:00Welcome Mrs. Evelyn Bulluck, ChairIntroductions Charge to the Committee Dr. Anthony D. Jackson, Superintendent  Role of the Committee Chairs  Role of the Committee  Role of the Consultant  School Board PrioritiesSenate Bill 612 Mr. Wardlaw Lamar, Esq., School Board AttorneyORED Mr. Mike Miller  Methodology  Process  TimelineCommunication Mrs. Sandy Drum, Public Information OfficerQuestions Next Meeting February 13 4:00-5:30 Central Office Auditorium 3
  2. 2. Carina BryantPrincipal, Southern Nash Middle School Victor Ward Director of Personnel
  3. 3.  Ann Mitchell, Elementary School Principal Robin May, Middle School Principal Chip Hodges, High School Principal
  4. 4.  Tommy Stockdale, Eaton Corporation Kelley Deal Tem Myers, Wells Fargo Bank Tripp Evans, CW Williams Vanessa McCleary, City of Rocky Mount
  5. 5.  Sherri Wells, Spring Hope Elementary Sylvia Anthony-McGeachy, Williford Elementary Cindi Carpenter, Southern Nash Middle School John Gay, Nash Central High School
  6. 6.  Tracy Proctor, Swift Creek Elementary Laticia Cavazos, Spring Hope Elementary Tracy Wiggins-Elliot, Middlesex Elementary LaTasha Sledge, Parker Middle/ Hubbard Elementary Monica Whitehead, Rocky Mount High School
  7. 7.  District 1 – Archie Jones District 2 - John Barnes District 3 - Reggie Mullen District 4 - Chet Osterhoudt District 5 - Melissa Dalsimer District 6 - Lester Weaver District 7 – Chris Miller District 8 – Pastor James Gailliard District 9 – Shirley Kelly-Morton District 10 – Ruth Bullard District 11 – Cynthia Dunston
  8. 8.  Central Office Staff will serve as ex-officio members of the committee; providing support as needed.  Superintendent  Assistant Superintendents  Directors
  9. 9. Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools January 30, 2012
  10. 10.  To prepare a recommendation and present a comprehensive student reassignment plan consistent with the priorities outlined by the board of education on or before August 2012. After public input and final board approval, the plan will be implemented at the start of the 2013-2014 school year. 12
  11. 11. 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 13
  12. 12. Public Engagement Board of Education Committee Chairs Technical SupportCommunity Committee Feedback ORED Staff 14
  13. 13. At its work session on January 23, the Nash-Rocky Mount Board of Education reachedconsensus on the following priorities to guidethe Student Reassignment Committee’spreparation of recommendations for theirconsideration. 15
  14. 14.  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. 16
  15. 15.  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. 17
  16. 16. Mr. Wardlaw Lamar, Esq.Mr. Lewis Lamar, Esq. Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools January 30, 2012
  17. 17.  Sec. 17. (a) The Interim Board and the Nash-Rocky Mount Board of Education shall make their best efforts to achieve a racial balance in student enrollment, within plus or minus 12 percentage points of the system wide average minority student enrollment at the following schools:  Rocky Mount Senior High, Northern Nash Senior High and any new high school within the Nash-Rocky Mount School Administrative Unit, and any middle or junior high school that feeds any of these high schools.  A school will be considered to be in substantial compliance with the racial balance objectives of this paragraph if its racial balance is plus or minus 18 percentage points of the system wide average minority student enrollment. (b) For all schools other than those covered in subsection (a) of this section, the Nash- Rocky Mount Board of Education will promote reasonable and practical racial balance in the schools, utilizing and preserving neighborhood and voluntary schools to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, and consistent with sound educational practices.
  18. 18. Michael Miller, Program ManagerOperations Research and Education Laboratory (OREd)Institute for Transportation Research and EducationCentennial CampusNorth Carolina State University Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools January 30, 2012
  19. 19. OREd was founded in 1990 by Dr. Raymond Taylor (ProfessorEmeritus, College of Education, NCSU) to scientifically addresspolitically sensitive school planning issues such as districtmembership projections, determining the location of newschool sites, creating new attendance boundaries anddemographic balance.OREd has served school districts ranging from 4000 to 140,000students in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi. 21
  20. 20. • Alamance–Burlington School System – 02, 03, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, • Haywood County Schools – 99 11 • Hoke County Schools – 99, 08, 09*, 11• Asheboro City Schools – 04, 05, 06, 07 • Lee County Schools – 08, 09*• Berkeley County Schools, SC – 09, 11 • Lenoir County School – 09• Bladen County Schools – 04 • Moore County Schools – 04, 07, 08, 09*• Buncombe County Schools – 98, 99 • Mooresville Graded Schools – 99, 00, 01, 04• Brunswick County Schools – 03, 04 • Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools – 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10,• Carteret County Schools – 09** 11• Chapel/Carrboro Schools – 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 05, 06, • New Hanover County Schools – 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00 07 • Onslow County Schools – 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09**, 10, 11• Chatham County Schools – 03, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11 • Orange County Schools – 95, 09• Craven County Schools – 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 04, 05, 06, • Pamlico County Schools – 09** 07, 08** • Pender County Schools – 09**• Cumberland County Schools – 08, 09* • Randolph County Schools – 05, 06, 07, 08, 09• Cleveland County Schools – 08 • Richmond County Schools – 00, 08*• Currituck County Schools – 09 • Robeson County Schools – 08*• Duplin County Schools – 09** • Rock Hill School District 3, SC – 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09,• Durham Public Schools – 08, 09, 11 10, 11• Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County Schools – 07 • Rowan County Schools – 09• Franklin County Schools – 08 • Pitt County Schools – 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00,• Iredell-Statesville Schools – 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10• Jones County Schools – 09** • Stokes County Schools – 05, 06, 08• Johnston County Schools – 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04, • Union County Schools – 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11 • Tupelo Public Schools, MS – 07• Gaston County Schools – 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04 • Vance County Schools – 09• Granville County Schools – 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 • Wayne County Schools – 95• Guilford County Schools – 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 09 • Wake County Public School System – 97, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08,• Harnett County Schools – 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 06, 07, 08, 09*, 09, 10, 11 10, 11 “*” denote projects conducted as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activity through the BRAC Regional Task Force in Fayetteville, North Carolina “**” denote projects conducted as part of the Military Growth Task Force of North Carolina’s Eastern Region in Jacksonville, North Carolina
  21. 21. Data-driven and policy-based model forforecasting school enrollment anddetermining the optimal locations for newschools and attendance boundaries.  Forecasting  Land Use Studies  Out-of-Capacity Analysis  Attendance Boundary Optimization  School Site Optimization 23
  22. 22. OPPORTUNITY! 24
  23. 23. Opportunity for: Examining current building utilization:  What is current policy on building utilization?  Are some schools being over-utilized?  Are some schools being under-utilized?  Are NRMPS schools prepared for growth? 25
  24. 24. Opportunity for: Examining current feeder patterns:  What are current Elem > Mid > High paths?  How do transfer policies affect these paths? 26
  25. 25. Opportunity for: Examining student balance:  What do we mean by “balancing” student populations?  What are current policies on balancing student populations?  What are current practices used by other districts?  What options are available to try to achieve balance? 27
  26. 26.  Process Methodology Timeline 28
  27. 27.  Form Committee representing stakeholders  Understand data & tools used  Understand optimization and scenario review process  Communicate to Board and community  Make recommendations to Board 29
  28. 28.  Compile supporting data  GIS data ▪ Parcels, streets ▪ Student geocodes ▪ Planning segment review  District membership trends ▪ NC DPI ADM for Month One  School building capacities 30
  29. 29. 273 segments60 K-12 students/segment (2010-11 geocode) Planning Segments currently under review. 31
  30. 30.  Understand Inputs and Parameters  District policy for reassignment  What is the reassignment plan to achieve?  Utilization  Feeder Patterns  Balance 32
  31. 31.  Develop Scenario Assumptions  Based on District policy  Utilization  Feeder patterns  Balance  Data-driven 33
  32. 32.  Optimal Attendance Zone Scenarios  Understand impact of scenario assumptions  Understand connection between scenario assumptions  Review/Revise scenarios  Transportation/access issues  Keeping neighborhoods together 34
  33. 33. Optimal Attendance ZonesData-driven School building Balance indexmembership capacities allowance forecast Optimization Algorithm Optimal Attendance Zones 35
  34. 34. Scenario Review/Revision Cycle Optimal Attendance ZonesScenario Review Track Edits & Update School Data 36
  35. 35.  Community engagement  Community understanding of process  What is important to NRMS parents? 37
  36. 36.  School facility planning is often carried out within a complex, multi- layered, and poorly articulated environment. The layers are qualitative and subjective, where even the best information is incomplete and constantly shifting. School boards are subject to very specific, externally imposed limitations on their decisions when planning facilities and setting attendance boundaries. School boards often change their decisions as they acquire new pieces of information. This invites negative press and erodes public confidence. The failure to fully grasp all relevant information makes it impossible for the school board to articulate and defend its recommendations to the public. This can have disastrous consequences when the budget must be approved or when school construction bond referenda are put before a public vote. - Taylor, Vasu, Causby, INTERFACES Vol. 29, 1999 38
  37. 37. OptimizationOperations Research techniques solve large-scale optimizationproblems involving many variables and constraints.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 39
  38. 38. OR techniques allow theexploration of holisticscenarios that can providemaximum efficiency forthe entire district. 40
  39. 39. Utilization/CapacityDemographic Proximity Balance Feeder Pattern 41
  40. 40.  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 42
  41. 41. Michael Miller, Program ManagerOperations Research and Education Laboratory (OREd)Institute for Transportation Research and EducationCentennial CampusNorth Carolina State University Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools January 30. 2012
  42. 42. Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools January 30, 2012
  43. 43.  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.
  44. 44.  After the organizational meeting on Monday, January 30, 2012. The committee will begin meeting in February with the charge to bring recommendations to the board no later than August 2012. The co-chairs will provide updates to the board at the work session immediately following each of their committee meetings.
  45. 45. February13 – (4:00-5:30)* March 26 (6:00) April 30 (6:00) May 29 (6:00) June25 (4:00–5:30)* August/ Sept TBD
  46. 46. QUESTIONS

×