Reassignment Committee Meeting June 25, 2012

  • 627 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education , Spiritual
  • 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
627
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
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. STUDENT REASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Media Center, Nash Central High School Monday, June 25, 2012 - 4:00 pm Call to Order……………………………………………………………………Victor Ward Roll Call………………………………………………………………………..Carina Bryant Approval of Minutes from the May 29, 2012 & June 12, 2012 Meetings Committee Operating Procedure Scenario Review and Revision………………………………Mike Miller, OREd Report to School Board 8/6/12 Questions? Next Meeting Scenario Discussion July 17, 2012 6:00 pm 3
  • 2. Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools
  • 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. Board of Public Engagement Education Committee Chairs Technical SupportCommunity Feedback Committee ORED Staff 6
  • 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. 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.  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 (cont.) June 12 – Scenario Review and Revision (cont.) June 25 – Final (?) Scenario Presentation 9
  • 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. Mike Miller, OREd 11
  • 10.  Middle School Scenarios  Clean feeder to HS  Based on Scenario HS 02, Rev. 1  Parker as 6th grade center for RM school(s)  2 options Elementary School Scenario  Minor adjustments to current zones  Informed by optimal scenario ES 01 (Proximity + Utilization)  Relief for Benvenue (currently at 111%) 12
  • 11.  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
  • 12.  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
  • 13.  IMPACT + FEEDER Maximum Utilization: 107% (NNHS, currently 105%) Minimum Utilization: 98% Total Grade 9-12 students reassigned: 736
  • 14. CURRENT HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL SCENARIO HS 02 – REV. 1 16
  • 15. 6-8 Student Count 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Southern NEW MS (RM Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Nash HS site)CURRENT 729 633 433 910 1099 0IMPACT + METRICS (MS 448 614 483 885 946 428 03, Rev. 1)IMPACT + METRICS (MS 558 614 279 885 946 522 04, Rev. 1) (See data tables in handout.)
  • 16. Utilization 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% NEW MS (RM Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash HS site)CURRENT 88% 94% 78% 107% 129% 0%IMPACT + METRICS (MS 03, Rev. 1) 60% 92% 87% 104% 111% 57%IMPACT + METRICS (MS 04, Rev. 1) 74% 92% 50% 104% 111% 70% Minority % 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% NEW MS (RM Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash HS site)CURRENT 78% 67% 88% 59% 51% 0%IMPACT + METRICS (MS 03, Rev. 1) 76% 50% 86% 56% 54% 96%IMPACT + METRICS (MS 04, Rev. 1) 80% 50% 89% 56% 54% 89%
  • 17. Free/Reduced Lunch % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% NEW MS (RM Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash HS site) CURRENT 73% 68% 78% 58% 64% 0% IMPACT + METRICS (MS 03, Rev. 1) 72% 54% 77% 57% 67% 86% IMPACT + METRICS (MS 04, Rev. 1) 74% 54% 81% 57% 67% 81% Academic Proficiency % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% NEW MS (RM Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash HS site)CURRENT 51% 54% 55% 69% 63% 0%IMPACT + METRICS (MS 03, Rev. 1) 50% 68% 48% 69% 62% 46%IMPACT + METRICS (MS 04, Rev. 1) 46% 68% 50% 69% 62% 50%
  • 18.  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 reassigned  MS 03, Rev. 1: 1093 (~ 350 to New MS)  MS 04, Rev. 1: 1221 (~ 510 to New MS)
  • 19. CURRENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MIDDLE SCHOOL SCENARIO MS 03, REV. 1 21
  • 20. CURRENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MIDDLE SCHOOL SCENARIO MS 04, REV. 1 22
  • 21. K-5 Student Count 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Red MB Winste Baskerv Benven Cedar Cooper Johnso Middle Nashvil Oak/S Spring Willifo Bailey Hubbar Pope ad/Eng ille ue Grove s n sex le wift Hope rd d lewood CreekCURRENT 620 341 743 221 624 475 492 340 709 279 583 550 437 1081UTIL + IMPACT (ES 01, Rev. 2) 620 341 625 221 624 452 492 340 625 302 673 550 557 1073 (See data tables in handout.)
  • 22. Utilization 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Red MB Winste Basker Benven Cedar Cooper Johnso Middle Nashvil Oak/S Spring Willifo Bailey Hubbar Pope ad/Eng ville ue Grove s n sex le wift Hope rd d lewood Creek CURRENT 93% 80% 111% 99% 104% 83% 96% 81% 104% 90% 72% 101% 75% 95% UTIL + IMPACT (ES 01, Rev. 2) 93% 80% 94% 99% 104% 79% 96% 81% 92% 97% 83% 101% 96% 95% Minority % 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Red MB Winste Basker Benven Cedar Cooper Johnso Middle Nashvil Oak/S Spring Willifo Bailey Hubbar Pope ad/Eng ville ue Grove s n sex le wift Hope rd d lewood CreekCURRENT 65% 98% 74% 52% 31% 100% 78% 59% 49% 99% 44% 51% 97% 64%UTIL + IMPACT (ES 01, Rev. 2) 65% 98% 71% 52% 31% 100% 78% 59% 50% 99% 43% 51% 97% 63%
  • 23. Free/Reduced Lunch % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Red MB Winste Basker Benven Cedar Cooper Johnso Middle Nashvil Oak/S Spring Willifo Bailey Hubbar Pope ad/Eng ville ue Grove s n sex le wift Hope rd d lewood CreekCURRENT 71% 94% 68% 73% 47% 91% 70% 70% 52% 91% 46% 65% 92% 59%UTIL + IMPACT (ES 01, Rev. 2) 71% 94% 65% 73% 47% 90% 70% 70% 53% 92% 46% 65% 92% 59% Academic Proficiency % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Red MB Winste Baskerv Benven Cedar Cooper Johnso Middle Nashvil Oak/S Spring Willifo Bailey Hubbar Pope ad/Eng ille ue Grove s n sex le wift Hope rd d lewood CreekCURRENT 62% 45% 63% 73% 73% 38% 58% 61% 71% 35% 72% 60% 35% 61%UTIL + IMPACT (ES 01, Rev. 2) 62% 45% 65% 73% 73% 38% 58% 61% 69% 35% 73% 60% 35% 62%
  • 24.  Maximum Utilization: 104% (Coopers, currently 104%) Minimum Utilization: 79% (Johnson, currently 83%) Total Grade K-5 students reassigned: 363
  • 25. CURRENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCENARIO ES 01, REV.2 27
  • 26.  Middle School Scenarios: Impact + Metrics  5 MS feeding 4 HS  Scenario MS 03, Rev. 1: Parker – 6th grade center for New MS and Edwards  Scenario MS 04, Rev. 1: Parker – 6th grade center for New MS  Clean feeder to HS, except for Edwards  Total Grade 6-8 students reassigned: 1093 – 1221 Elementary School Scenario: Utilization + Impact  Optimal Scenario ES 01, Rev. 2  Total Grade K-5 students reassigned: 363 28
  • 27. 29
  • 28. 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
  • 29. QUESTIONS