Okerholm VA Boundary Option to Board 01192012

8/3/2019 Okerholm VA Boundary Option to Board 01192012

1/29

EOs

VA Boundary Option Vertical Alignment
http://www.getodd.com/duck/alignment.html


2/29

Why are We Here? Why are you here? to alleviate over crowding at CRHS Why am I here and why listen to me? I accurately and logically represent the data

Oak Brook Resident, taxpayer, with kids in LISD and RRISD (McNeil and Cedar Valley) I have 3 Masters Degrees, one of them a Master of Information Management from

Washington University in STL. I am a 13+ year Business Intelligence Professional:

I have over a decade of CXO level presentations and recommendations. See client list and history next slide

I can objectively look at the data, not just for my neighborhood or elementaryschool, but as I have shown, repeatedly, The ENTIRE District.

The VA plan which vertically aligns RRISD and stabilizes capacity against growth for 9years before the likelihood of another HS Boundary Change, and saves Million$ issupported by families in the following areas/communities:

Wells Branch Stone Oak/Mayfield Ranch Walsh Trails Great Oaks Elem ( yes, Great Oaks too ) Brushy Creek Elem Cedar Valley (Oak Brook, Avery, Cat Hallow, Brushy Creek, etc.) McNeil

2


3/29

Educational Background

3

M.H.A. (Master of Health Administration) with Honors , Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, May 1998.

M.I.M. (Master of Information Management) ,

Emphasis in Database Structure and Management , Washington University Schoolof Engineering and Applied Science, St. Louis, MO, May 1998.

M.S. Human Anatomy & Physiology (equivalent) The Ohio State University College of Medicine; Medical Education CareerPathway (MEDPATH), Columbus, OH, 1993-1996.

B.S. Zoology (Minors in Human Nutrition & Psychology) ,The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, June 1992.


4/29

Current & Previous Clients

Duke UniversityMedical Center

4


5/29

HS Boundary Moves SolvedNow and Later (again )

Realigning Boundaries Back Now Repairs unnecessary issues presented after the last boundary decision

2008 Enrollment Data, on hand, was overlooked that showed the population bulge in CRthat lead to this boundary change needed WE DIDNT NEED TO BE HERE

The boundaries presented in 2009 are still solid, true, viable, statistically sound and accurate -providing capacity and stability to the District for an additional 9 years!

The District will again be re-established and stable for years to come and ready and able to handlegrowth in the obvious areas (currently & with the current proposal this is not the case)

Discontinues HS Legacies that should not have been started - The longer they are allowed tocontinue, the harder and more painful future changes become to families and the communities(rightfully so)

Safer = No one will cross IH 35 MS Vertical Alignment is restored for ALL Schools as well as primed for High School #6 in 9+ years Is Proactive: The capacity is there to proactively prepare for growth & still remain stable/strong

Planning ahead, moving to Next HS Boundary (for HS #6) is practically seamless All Elementary & Middle Schools that feed HS#6 are completely aligned All District HS schools still thrive and survive and are prepped to handle growth and a boundary

change for HS#6 in 9+ years, if/when needed - but in a turn key fashion No Boundary CommitteeNeeded 5


6/29

This is not about SES or UIL

6

HS WB Only

CRHS 32.94% 33.08%

MHS 20.5% 21.11%

RRHS 18.3% 18.3%

SPHS 39.42% 39.42%

WW 11.3% 11.32%

HS WB Only

CRHS 30.5% 33%

MHS 18.2% 21%

RRHS 21.4% 18%

SPHS 43% 40%

WW 11.3% 11.3%

I called and spoke with Darryl Beasley in the Athletics Department of UIL whoconfirmed that if a student/athlete is moved schools because of a District zoningchange, the student/athletes UIL Eligibility is NOT AFFECTED.

This information can be found on the UILTexas website under the Constitution andContest Rules, Subchapter M, Section 440 b(2) (page 3-4)

www.uiltexas.org/policy/constitution/catergory/constitution-general www.uiltexas.org/files/constitution/uil-ccr-subchapter-m.pdf

District Plan SES RTW Plan SES*

* as calculated by The District
http://www.uiltexas.org/policy/constitution/catergory/constitution-generalhttp://www.uiltexas.org/files/constitution/uil-ccr-subchapter-m.pdfhttp://www.uiltexas.org/files/constitution/uil-ccr-subchapter-m.pdfhttp://www.uiltexas.org/files/constitution/uil-ccr-subchapter-m.pdfhttp://www.uiltexas.org/files/constitution/uil-ccr-subchapter-m.pdfhttp://www.uiltexas.org/files/constitution/uil-ccr-subchapter-m.pdfhttp://www.uiltexas.org/files/constitution/uil-ccr-subchapter-m.pdfhttp://www.uiltexas.org/files/constitution/uil-ccr-subchapter-m.pdfhttp://www.uiltexas.org/files/constitution/uil-ccr-subchapter-m.pdfhttp://www.uiltexas.org/policy/constitution/catergory/constitution-generalhttp://www.uiltexas.org/policy/constitution/catergory/constitution-generalhttp://www.uiltexas.org/policy/constitution/catergory/constitution-general


7/29

This is Not About Capacityor 3000 Students

7

HS HS Capacity @ 3000 Actual Capacity @ 3000

CR 2440 3000 123%

RR 2932 3000 102%

MN 2366 3000 127%

SP 2454 3000 122%WW 2612 3000 115%

HS Capacity 125% Value 130% Value

CR 2440 1.25 3050 1.3 3172RR 2942 1.25 3678 1.3 3825

MN 2366 1.25 2958 1.3 3076

SP 2454 1.25 3068 1.3 3190

WW 2612 1.25 3265 1.3 3396

Not all schools share the samecapacity volume restrictions

orScary numbers


8/29

You cant predict the future,but you can certainly prepare for it!

8

CRHS in VA2012 = 2921

Adding in WB


9/29

In 2009 The District Predicted 2455 enrollmentfor 2012 for CRHS! (a 460 student difference )

9Source: District Boundary Presentation for G2 032009

2008 => 29322012 => 2881 (District*)2012 => 2921 (VA Plan)

* District Moves Berkman/CD Fulkes, I do not


10/29

Tere McCanns (CFO, private industry) (School Boundary Committee)Vetted District Enrollment Data

12+ years of District Enrollment Data (2012-2024) Based on actual students in RRISD in school NOW, by year, by school, by grade (K-12) Leveraging generally acceptable practices and statistical analysis

More Accurate Cohort survival ratios, longer aging and averaging, and believableadjustable growth rates, etc.

The data presented from BOTHplans to the BC by Mr. Flores on 1/12 was inaccurate That data was used to judge and determine support for/or against each plan That data is still not accurate today.

District stated Capacity does not include portables (I do later)

10

Bigger imageNext Slide


11/29

11

Capacity does not include portables (I do later)

80 acres

93 acres

47 acres

VA


12/29

District Plan Guarantees BoundaryAlignment needed 2016

12


13/29


14/29

1) Move Great Oaksboundary back toand reunite ALL CVstudents at McNeil,include Horizongiven ES, MS feederpattern

2) WB volume toRRHS & Stone Oak/Mayfield Ranch backto RRHS to back fillthe Great OaksStudents and prep

for future

VA Boundarysuggestion

14

3) Vertically align allof Grisham toWestwood


15/29

Boundary move suggestion current (2012) (includes SPHS/CRHS)

*Enrollment based on Sept, 2011 Enrollment Report**Capacity does not include portables

Campus *Enrollment **Capacity %age Portables

Cedar Ridge 2921 (4 grades) 2440 120% 10McNeil 2532 2366 107% 12

Round Rock 2712 2942 92% 10

Stony Point 2136 2454 87% 9

Westwood 2602 2612 100% 17

Total 12903 12814 101% 58 15

Option VA Data (2012)


Cedar Ridge 2881 (4 grades) 2440 118% 10McNeil 2383 2366 101% 12

Round Rock 2730 2942 93% 10

Stony Point 2308 2454 94% 9

Westwood 2602 2612 100% 17

Total 12904 12814 101% 58


16/29



48*$14000 = $672,000/year

16

Option VA Data (2012) with portables adjusted

Capacity does not include Portables (22 per)

Adjusted w/ Portables

2660 108%

2630 91%

3162 86%

2652 87%

2986 87%14090 90%


2660 110%

2542 100%

2942 92%

2454 87%

2612 100%

13210 98%

Campus Enrollment **Capacity %age Portables

Cedar Ridge 2921 2440 120% 10McNeil 2532 2366 107% 8

Round Rock 2712 2942 92% 0

Stony Point 2136 2454 87% 0

Westwood 2602 2612 100% 0

Total 12903 12814 101% 18


Cedar Ridge 2881 2440 118% 10

McNeil 2383 2366 101% 12

Round Rock 2730 2942 93% 10

Stony Point 2308 2454 94% 9

Westwood 2602 2612 100% 17 Total 12904 12814 101% 58


17/29



48*$14000 = $672,000/year

17

Option VA Data (2012) with portables adjusted

Capacity does not include Portables (22 per)


2660 108%

2630 91%

3162 86%

2652 87%

2986 87%14090 90%


2660 110%

2542 100%

2942 92%

2454 87%

2612 100%

13210 98%

Campus Enrollment **Capacity %age Portables

Cedar Ridge 2921 2440 120% 10McNeil 2532 2366 107% 8

Round Rock 2712 2942 92% 0

Stony Point 2136 2454 87% 0

Westwood 2602 2612 100% 0

Total 12903 12814 101% 18


Cedar Ridge 2881 2440 118% 10

McNeil 2383 2366 101% 12

Round Rock 2730 2942 93% 10

Stony Point 2308 2454 94% 9

Westwood 2602 2612 100% 17 Total 12904 12814 101% 58

Readjust Portable Allocation to satisfy capacity needs

40 portables saved = $560,000(11.7 teacher salaries @ $48,000 avg)


18/29

VA Allows For Choice:

If you are already attending a particular HSand are happy there, YOU CAN STAY WHEREYOU ARE as a transfer and all students in the

family will be allowed to stay in the school if the family choses to stay as a transfer (regardless of grade ).

In addition, because of the previousboundary change the District should continueto provide bus service for 3 years.

If you are already enrolled in HS and CHOOSEto move to the new school and live withinthe bussing distance guidelines - You will be

bussed to the new school. ALL MIDDLE SCHOOLS STAY TOGETHER

ALL Existing Middle School Students willSTAY WITH THEIR MIDDLES SCHOOLCLASSMATES and be zoned to HStogether as leading Educators have

strongly suggested is in the Best Interestof the Students. 18

No current HS students have to move! NONE!


19/29

STAY WHERE YOU ARE

19

No one has to move high schools. Yes, NO ONE Stay where you currently are enrolled and

attending, as a transfer with bus serviceOR Choose, as a family, for your son/daughter to go

where the boundary change puts them and stay

with ALLof their middle school classmates All Middle School students stay together

throughout the entire District


20/29

100 % Vertical Alignment MS to HS with VA

20

Current - verified

Cedar Ridge

CD Fulkes Chisholm* Ridgeview

McNeil Cedar Valley* Deerpark

Round Rock Cedar Valley* Chisholm* Walsh*

Stony Point Hernandez Hopewell Walsh*

West Wood Canyon Vista Grisham

VA 100% Aligned

Cedar Ridge CD Fulkes Ridgeview

McNeil Cedar Valley Deerpark

Round Rock Chisholm Walsh

Stony Point Hernandez Hopewell

West Wood Canyon Vista Grisham

* Split due to last boundary change

District - Proposed

Cedar Ridge CD Fulkes* Ridgeview

McNeil Cedar Valley* Deerpark

Round Rock Cedar Valley* Chisholm* Walsh*

Stony Point CD Fulkes* Hernandez Hopewell Walsh*

West Wood Canyon Vista

Grisham * Additional Split due to proposed boundary change

Wh i th Di t i t Ad i i t ti i thi


21/29

Why is the District Administration proposing somethingthat moves further away from their stated views?

21* Split due to last boundary change * Additional Split due to proposed boundary change

Dr. Chavezs sentiments expressed atSchool Boundary Committee meeting -

Vertical Alignment is the best solution for the District, but is

difficult to achieve.

Students who develop their relationships,especially in middle school, need to be able

to move as a group to high school , becausethink about it, they will be going to one middle school and then we would throw them into a big high school wherethey would have to reestablish those relationships where

as at least at a minimum, when you are moving frommiddle school to high school the transition wont be as

challenging (if you are together).That is my perspective as an educator.

Trustee Dr. Linelle ClarkBrown,RRISD School Board Meeting, April 7, 2009


22/29

Get Our Ducks in a Rowwith VA

Youve made amends AND given families and individuals choice to stay or move

Youve realigned vertical feeder patterns for the ENTIRE District - Middle to High School

Youve reduced portables and overcrowding

Youve saved $$ for educational improvements teacher salaries, other district employeesor infrastructure

Youve realigned with community support and natural boundaries (IH35 and 183)

Youve minimalized disturbance ACROSS THE DISTRICT and prepared yourself for 7 -10 yrs. NET ZERO MOVEMENTacross the District for all area HS students.

Vertical Alignment for ALL Middle Schools . Keep CD Fulkes/Berkman at CRHS for vertical alignment & to prep for future growth in

Stony Point HS Area with minimal movement later Horizons now feeding Elsa England and then CV should now go to McNeil All of Grisham should feed Westwood

ALL Middle school students in the District stay together to the same High School.


23/29

Option VA 2015 Data

23

Readjust Portable Allocation to satisfycapacity needs as they arrive


Campus *2015 Enrollment **Capacity %age Portables

Cedar Ridge 2856 2440 117% 10

McNeil 2862 2366 121% 10

Round Rock 3049 2942 104% 0

Stony Point 2424 2454 99% 0

Westwood 2671 2612 102% 0

Total 13862 12814 108% 20


2660 107%

2586 111%

2942 104%

2454 99%

2612 102%

13254 105%


24/29

Campus *2019 Enrollment **Capacity %age Portables

Cedar Ridge 2983 2440 122% 12

McNeil 2944 2366 124% 12

Round Rock 3468 2942 118% 10

Stony Point 2924 2454 119% 4

Westwood 2469 2612 95% 0

Total 14788 12814 115% 38

Option VA 2019 Data

24


2704 110%

2630 112%

3162 110%

2542 115%

2612 95%

13650 108%

Readjust Portable Allocation to satisfycapacity needs as they arrive



25/29

1) New HSFeeder,minimalbussing

2) E of 183 from

Westwoodreunited toMcNeil.

New HS #6Almost zero

buses

25

Overall Growth of Kids at Desks nowin suspectedareas, preparedfor others, even

unexpected


26/29

Option VA buys the districtsome serious time (9-10+years) on The East & The

West Side of IH35.

VA also prepares RRISD forgrowth ( IF and ) when ithappens for many yearsto come in a proactive

manner East OR West of IH35

26


27/29

Vertical Alignment Restored(again)

All Elementary Schools feed the same HS #6 Boundary.The new middle school that goes along with the HS

will maintain that consistent vertically alignedfeeder pattern as well, whenever that is needed.

27


28/29

Vertical Alignment

Satisfies the Boundary Committees Charter to relieve the overcrowding at Cedar RidgeHS. (The ONLY Item On The Charter regarding HS Students)

Satisfies the Districts and Boards desire to have minimal student movement of currently enrolled HS students .

28

Has NET ZEROforced movement of ANY current HS Student Vertically Aligns ALLDistrict Middle Schools to stay together to a

single High School. Creates room for transfers, across the District Is a 9+ year plan setting expectations and is fiscally responsible

Money saved could be spent on improving educational programs, teachers, employees,

infrastructure VA and data show that there is enough data and capacity to follow a 9 year growth plan and

not need a new HS, given current and projected growth until 2020 or 2021, if even then. Yes, I just said 9+ years. ( 12+ if you count the other boundaries in plans

proposed in 2009 that are still holding true ) Moves Portables not People


29/29

Thank you for your service, your time, and attention.You can reach me with any questions or follow up needs and/or further analysis

Okerholm VA Boundary Option to Board 01192012

Documents

Transcript of Okerholm VA Boundary Option to Board 01192012