Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Reassignment Plan 2013-14 Committee Recommendation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Reassignment Plan 2013-14 Committee Recommendation

940

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
940
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
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. 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 2
  • 2. 3
  • 3. Contiguous boundaries Respect Enrollment neighbor- balance hoods Explore attendance zone scenarios for the new Rocky Mount HS and other Consider schools while considering Proximity toanticipated schools growth Board Priorities. Stay within Modify enrollment feeder capacities systems 4
  • 4. Data-driven and policy-based model for forecastingschool enrollment and determining the optimallocations for new schools and attendanceboundaries.  Forecasting  Land Use Studies  Out-of-Capacity Analysis  Attendance Boundary Optimization  School Site Optimization 5
  • 5. What is an Optimal Scenario?Operations Research techniques solve large-scale optimizationproblems involving many variables and constraints.The driving variable in the optimization algorithm is total distancetraveled by students to school. The solutions called scenariosgenerated by these OR techniques are optimal in the following way: the system-wide student travel distance is minimized while satisfying constraints such as building capacity and demographic balance 6
  • 6. Policy Optimal ScenarioData 7
  • 7. OUTCOMES: Addresses utilization concerns Reduces system-wide student travel distance Contiguous attendance zones Impacts large number of children Impacts student balance metrics Does not improve feeder pattern 8
  • 8. OUTCOMES: Lessens reassignment impact Better balances student metrics Better aligns feeder patterns Contiguous attendance zones Addresses many utilization concerns 9
  • 9. Scenario Review & Revision OREd review of optimal scenarios  Transportation issues  Feeder pattern consideration  Reassignment impact General Committee requests for additional optimal scenarios (Two requests made and presented) Individual Committee member requests for scenario revisions (Two requests made and presented) 10
  • 10.  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. 2010 testing data supplied by NRMPS, calculated across 2011-12 grades 4-9. 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. 11
  • 11.  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. 12
  • 12. 9-12 Student Count 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern NashStudent Count CURRENT 1232 1204 1130 1232Student Count RECOMMEND 1116 1234 1391 1057 (See data tables in handouts.)
  • 13. 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 Utilization CURRENT 107% 105% 81% 115% Utilization RECOMMEND 97% 107% 100% 99% Minority % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash Minority (9-12) CURRENT 67% 69% 84% 51% Minority (9-12) RECOMMEND 63% 56% 83% 50%
  • 14. Statistics based on residence (2011 geocode).Does not measure impact of specialprograms such as IB. Free/Reduced Lunch % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash FRL (K-12) CURRENT 67% 65% 72% 64% FRL (K-12) RECOMMEND 65% 57% 76% 67% 80% 70% Academic Proficiency % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash PROF (3-8) CURRENT 60% 61% 53% 63% PROF (3-8) RECOMMEND 57% 69% 52% 62%
  • 15. 6-8 Student Count 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 NEW MS (RM HS Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash site)Student Count CURRENT 729 633 433 910 1099 0Student Count RECOMMEND 488 614 353 890 946 513 (See data tables in handouts.)
  • 16. Utilization 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% NEW MS (RM HS Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash site)Utilization CURRENT 88% 94% 78% 107% 129% 0%Utilization RECOMMEND 59% 92% 63% 105% 111% 68% Minority % 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% NEW MS (RM HS Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash site)Minority (6-8) CURRENT 78% 67% 88% 59% 51% 0%Minority (6-8) RECOMMEND 71% 50% 98% 56% 54% 91%
  • 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)FRL (K-12) CURRENT 73% 68% 78% 58% 64% 0%FRL (K-12) RECOMMEND 66% 54% 91% 57% 67% 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% RECOMMEND 52% 68% 42% 69% 62% 49%
  • 18. K-5 Student Count 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 MB Red Winstea Baskervi Benvenu Cedar Middles Nashvill Spring Willifor Bailey Coopers Johnson Hubbar Pope Oak/Swi d/Engle lle e Grove ex e Hope d d ft Creek woodCURRENT 620 341 743 221 624 475 492 340 709 279 583 550 437 1081RECOMMEND 620 372 680 221 624 475 492 340 709 279 589 550 437 1107 (See data tables in handouts.)
  • 19. Utilization 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% MB Red Winstea Baskervi Benvenu Cedar Middles Nashvill Spring Willifor Bailey Coopers Johnson Hubbar Pope Oak/Swi d/Engle lle e Grove ex e Hope d d ft Creek woodCURRENT 93% 80% 111% 99% 104% 83% 96% 81% 104% 90% 72% 101% 75% 95%RECOMMEND 93% 87% 102% 99% 104% 83% 96% 81% 104% 90% 73% 101% 75% 98% Minority % 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% MB Red Winstea Baskervi Benvenu Cedar Middles Nashvill Spring Willifor Bailey Coopers Johnson Hubbar Pope Oak/Swi d/Engle lle e Grove ex e Hope d d ft Creek woodCURRENT 65% 98% 74% 52% 31% 100% 78% 59% 49% 99% 44% 51% 97% 64%RECOMMEND 65% 97% 74% 52% 31% 100% 78% 59% 49% 99% 43% 51% 97% 64%
  • 20. Free/Reduced Lunch % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% MB Red Winstea Baskervi Benvenu Cedar Middles Nashvill Spring Willifor Bailey Coopers Johnson Hubbar Pope Oak/Swi d/Engle lle e Grove ex e Hope d d ft Creek woodCURRENT 71% 94% 68% 73% 47% 91% 70% 70% 52% 91% 46% 65% 92% 59%RECOMMEND 71% 92% 68% 73% 47% 91% 70% 70% 52% 91% 46% 65% 92% 60% 80% Academic Proficiency % 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Red Winstea Baskervil Benvenu Cedar MB Middlese Nashvill Spring Bailey Coopers Johnson Pope Oak/Swi Williford d/Engle le e Grove Hubbard x e Hope ft Creek woodCURRENT 62% 45% 63% 73% 73% 38% 58% 61% 71% 35% 72% 60% 35% 61%RECOMMEND 62% 45% 64% 73% 73% 38% 58% 61% 71% 35% 72% 60% 35% 61%
  • 21.  Maximum Utilization: 111% (SNMS, currently 127%) Minimum Utilization: 59% (Edwards MS, currently 88%) Maximum MS > HS feeder: 2 (Edwards and New MS) Maximum ES > MS feeder: 4 (Benvenue ES) Total students reassigned: 2089  Elem: 63 (1 Elem Schools impacted)  Mid: 1281 (5 Mid Schools impacted, 513 to new MS)  High: 745 (3 High Schools impacted)

×