Reassignment committee meeting  march 26-revised
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Reassignment committee meeting march 26-revised

on

  • 2,427 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,427
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
890
Embed Views
1,537

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

4 Embeds 1,537

http://www.nrms.k12.nc.us 1434
http://nrms.schoolwires.net 76
http://nrms.k12.nc.us 26
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  march 26-revised Reassignment committee meeting march 26-revised Presentation Transcript

    • STUDENT REASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Media Center, Nash Central High School Monday, March 26, 2012 - 6:00 pmCall to Order Victor WardRoll Call Carina Bryant Approval of the Minutes from the February 13, 2012, Committee Organizational MeetingCommittee Operating ProcedureData Provided to ORED Lisa Ballance Out of Capacity Table and Scenario Data Mike Miller OREDReport to School Board 4/26/12Questions Next Meeting Scenario Review and Revision Monday, April 30, 2012 3 6:00 pm
    • Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools
    • 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
    • Public Engagement Board of Education Committee Chairs Technical SupportCommunity Committee Feedback ORED 6 Staff
    • 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
    • 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
    •  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
    •  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.
    • Mike Miller, OREd 11
    • Nash-Rocky Mount Public SchoolsMichael Miller, Program ManagerOperations Research and Education Laboratory (OREd)Institute for Transportation Research and EducationCentennial CampusNorth Carolina State University
    •  Data Collection/Compilation  Planning Segment review: Complete  263 Planning Segments  61 K-12 students/segment  Planning Segment Data loaded:  Free/Reduced Lunch eligibility percentage (K-12 2011-12)  Academic Proficiency percentage (Grades 3-8 EOG 2010-11)  Minority percentage  Student Transfer Data (see handout) Optimization Models  Data loaded for three levels: Elem, Mid, High  Preliminary analysis/scenarios 13
    •  Elementary and Middle schools grouped in High School “clusters” NC DPI Month-1 Average Daily Membership (K-12) * Target Middle School Capacity = 750 ** * Schools-of-Choice not included in this analysis ** Parker Middle School capacity = 557 14
    • 15
    • OPTIMIZATION 16
    • 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 thefollowing way: the system-wide student travel distance is minimized while satisfying constraints such as building utilization and student balance metrics 17
    • The following preliminary scenarios will establish a baselinefor all future scenario work, including those involving studentbalance metrics. The preliminary scenarios focus on: PROXIMITY – Minimization of system-wide student travel distance UTILIZATION – Balancing system-wide building utilization 18
    • Note: Student Balance Metric Data 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. 19
    • Note: 2011-12 zones shown. >>> 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 1232PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 1169 1182 1411 1036 (See data tables in handouts.)
    • Utilization 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern NashCURRENT 107% 105% 81% 115%PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 102% 103% 102% 97% Minority % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern NashCURRENT 67% 69% 84% 51%PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 53% 62% 94% 53%
    • Free/Reduced Lunch % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern NashCURRENT 67% 65% 72% 64%PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 51% 59% 85% 67% Academic Proficiency % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern NashCURRENT 60% 61% 53% 63%PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 70% 68% 43% 62%
    • Note: 2011-12 zones shown. >>> 24
    • 6-8 Student Count 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 NEW MS (RM Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash HS site)CURRENT 729 633 433 910 1099 0PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 661 684 504 646 677 632 (See data tables in handouts.)
    • Target Middle School capacity = 750. Parker capacity = 557. 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%PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 88% 91% 90% 86% 90% 84% Minority % 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 78% 67% 88% 59% 51% 0%PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 61% 48% 90% 52% 56% 91%
    • Free/Reduced Lunch % 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%PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 63% 50% 83% 54% 70% 83% Academic Proficiency % 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 NEW MS (RM Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash HS site)CURRENT 729 633 433 910 1099 0PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 661 684 504 646 677 632
    • Note: 2011-12 zones shown. >>> 28
    • K-5 Student Count 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Red MB Winste Basker Benve Cedar Cooper Johnso Middle Nashvi Oak/S Spring Willifo Bailey Hubba Pope ad/Eng ville nue Grove s n sex lle wift Hope rd rd lewood CreekCURRENT 620 341 743 221 624 475 492 340 709 279 583 550 437 1081PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 620 430 584 214 551 511 499 340 663 304 635 520 588 1036 (See data tables in handouts.)
    • Utilization 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Red Winste MB Basker Benve Cedar Coope Johnso Middle Nashvi Oak/S Spring Willifo ad/Eng Bailey Hubba Pope ville nue Grove rs n sex lle wift Hope rd lewoo rd Creek dCURRENT 93% 80% 111% 99% 104% 83% 96% 81% 104% 90% 72% 101% 75% 95%PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 93% 101% 87% 96% 92% 89% 97% 81% 97% 98% 78% 96% 101% 91% Minority % 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Red Winste MB Basker Benve Cedar Coope Johnso Middle Nashvi Oak/S Spring Willifo ad/Eng Bailey Hubba Pope ville nue Grove rs n sex lle wift Hope rd lewoo rd Creek dCURRENT 65% 98% 74% 52% 31% 100% 78% 59% 49% 99% 44% 51% 97% 64%PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 65% 98% 70% 49% 26% 99% 78% 59% 49% 98% 43% 51% 91% 63%
    • Free/Reduced Lunch % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Red Winste MB Basker Benve Cedar Coope Johnso Middle Nashvi Oak/S Spring Willifo ad/Eng Bailey Hubba Pope ville nue Grove rs n sex lle wift Hope rd lewoo rd Creek dCURRENT 71% 94% 68% 73% 47% 91% 70% 70% 52% 91% 46% 65% 92% 59%PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 71% 92% 64% 71% 42% 90% 72% 70% 51% 92% 47% 65% 91% 58% Academic Proficiency % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Red MB Winste Basker Benve Cedar Cooper Johnso Middle Nashvi Oak/S Spring Willifo Bailey Hubba Pope ad/Eng ville nue Grove s n sex lle wift Hope rd rd lewood CreekCURRENT 62% 45% 63% 73% 73% 38% 58% 61% 71% 35% 72% 60% 35% 61%PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 62% 47% 65% 75% 76% 36% 58% 61% 70% 36% 72% 60% 38% 62%
    • Utilization/CapacityDemographic Proximity Balance Feeder Pattern 32
    •  Data Collection/Compilation Complete! Out-of-Capacity Worksheet Preliminary Optimal Scenario Data  Proximity + Utilization only  Student balance metrics tracked 33
    • February13 – (4:00-5:30)* March 26 (6:00) April30 (6:00) May 29 (6:00) June25 (4:00–5:30)* August/ Sept TBD
    • QUESTIONS