Reassignment committee meeting July 17

1,122 views

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
1,122
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Reassignment committee meeting July 17

  1. 1. STUDENT REASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Media Center, Nash Central High School Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 6:00 pm Call to Order……………………………………………………………………Victor Ward Roll Call………………………………………………………………………..Carina Bryant Approval of Minutes from the June 25, 2012 Meeting (suspend until next meeting) Committee Operating Procedure Scenario Review and Revision………………………………Mike Miller, OREd Report to School Board - August 2012 Questions? Next Meeting Scenario Discussion TBD 3
  2. 2. Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools
  3. 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. 4. Board of Public Engagement Education Committee Chairs Technical SupportCommunity Feedback Committee ORED Staff 6
  5. 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. 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. 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 – Scenario Review and Revision (cont.) July 17 – Scenario Review and Revision (cont.) 9
  8. 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. 9. Mike Miller, OREd 11
  10. 10.  Middle School Scenarios  General Committee requests:  Utilization, No feeder – MS 02, Rev. 1  3 middle schools in Rocky Mount – MS 05, Rev.1  Committee member requests:  MS 04, Rev. 2 Elementary School Scenario  Minor adjustments to current zones  Relief for Benvenue (currently at 111%) 12
  11. 11.  Committee Member Requests  Scenario Revision Tools sent June 27  Planning segment map  Planning segment data table  Documentation 13
  12. 12. 6-8 Student Count 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 NEW MS (RM HS Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash site)CURRENT 729 633 433 910 1099 0PROX + UTIL (MS 02, Rev. 1) 703 653 282 808 847 5113 MS IN RM (MS 05, Rev. 1) 488 625 353 888 932 518 (See data tables in handout.)
  13. 13. Utilization 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% NEW MS (RM HS Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash site)CURRENT 88% 94% 78% 107% 129% 0%PROX + UTIL (MS 02, Rev. 1) 94% 97% 51% 95% 100% 68%3 MS IN RM (MS 05, Rev. 1) 65% 93% 63% 104% 110% 69% Minority % 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% NEW MS (RM HS Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash site)CURRENT 78% 67% 88% 59% 51% 0%PROX + UTIL (MS 02, Rev. 1) 66% 47% 96% 57% 56% 96%3 MS IN RM (MS 05, Rev. 1) 71% 50% 98% 56% 54% 91%
  14. 14. Free/Reduced Lunch % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% NEW MS (RM HS Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash site)CURRENT 73% 68% 78% 58% 64% 0%PROX + UTIL (MS 02, Rev. 1) 66% 51% 87% 59% 69% 87%3 MS IN RM (MS 05, Rev. 1) 66% 54% 91% 57% 67% 82% 80% Academic Proficiency % 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% PROX + UTIL (MS 02, Rev. 1) 55% 71% 44% 68% 61% 44% 3 MS IN RM (MS 05, Rev. 1) 52% 68% 42% 69% 62% 49%
  15. 15.  Maximum Utilization: 110% (SNMS, MS 05 Rev.1, currently 129%) Minimum Utilization: 51% (Parker, MS 02 Rev.1, currently 78%) MS 02, Rev. 1: NCMS to 3 high schools, Edwards and NEW to 2 high schools MS 05, Rev. 1: All clean feeder to high schools except Edwards split to NCHS and RMHS Total Grade 6-8 students reassigned  MS 02, Rev. 1: 1334  MS 05, Rev. 1: 1276
  16. 16. CURRENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MIDDLE SCHOOL SCENARIO MS 02, REV. 1 18
  17. 17. CURRENT MIDDLE SCHOOL MIDDLE SCHOOL SCENARIO MS 05, REV. 1 19
  18. 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 1081Scenario ES 02 620 372 688 221 624 475 492 340 709 279 581 550 437 1107 (See data tables in handout.)
  19. 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 wood CURRENT 93% 80% 111% 99% 104% 83% 96% 81% 104% 90% 72% 101% 75% 95% Scenario ES 02 93% 87% 103% 99% 104% 83% 96% 81% 104% 90% 72% 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%Scenario ES 02 65% 97% 74% 52% 31% 100% 78% 59% 49% 99% 43% 51% 97% 64%
  20. 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 wood CURRENT 71% 94% 68% 73% 47% 91% 70% 70% 52% 91% 46% 65% 92% 59% Scenario ES 02 71% 92% 68% 73% 47% 91% 70% 70% 52% 91% 46% 65% 92% 60% Academic Proficiency % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Red Winstea Baskervil Benvenu Cedar MB Middlese Spring Bailey Coopers Johnson Nashville Pope Oak/Swi Williford d/Engle le e Grove Hubbard x Hope ft Creek woodCURRENT 62% 45% 63% 73% 73% 38% 58% 61% 71% 35% 72% 60% 35% 61%Scenario ES 02 62% 45% 64% 73% 73% 38% 58% 61% 71% 35% 72% 60% 35% 61%
  21. 21.  Impacting six elementary schools: Benvenue, Baskerville, Red Oak/Swift Creek, and Winstead/Englewood Total Grade K-5 students reassigned: 71 Benvenue utilization: 103% (currently 111%)
  22. 22. CURRENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCENARIO ES 02 24
  23. 23.  Middle School Scenarios  Committee requests  Better utilization balance  3 middle schools in Rocky Mount  Member request MS 04, Rev. 2 Elementary School Scenario  Scenario ES 02 25
  24. 24. 26
  25. 25.  Further scenarios?  Deadline for Committee member requests: July 24, 2012 How many options to present? “Packaging” the recommended scenarios? Reminder: High-resolution review must be performed by NRMPS Transportation Dept. 27
  26. 26. 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) Tuesday July 17 (6:00) August - TBD
  27. 27. QUESTIONS

×