Presentation Elementary Boundary Study
Transcript of Presentation Elementary Boundary Study
PresentationElementary Boundary Study
April 23, 2019
1
Preview of Tonight’s Meeting
• Welcome Dr. Sidle, Superintendent
• Scope and Purpose of Study Mr. Schoch, Consultant
• Objectives and Goals Mr. Schoch
• Decision Making Methods Mr. Schoch
• Boundary Recommendations Mr. Schoch • Supporting Data and Rationale
• Implementation Plan Dr. Sidle
• Questions Dr. Sidle, Mr. Schoch
2
Scope and Purpose of Study• Scope:
• Limited to Kindergarten to 3rd Grade boundaries, in four existing schools because all other schools serve students districtwide
• Purpose: • Analyze enrollment trends within each of the four existing K to 3rd grade attendance
boundaries • Compare projected enrollments in each attendance area with the capacity of the
existing K to 3rd grade school serving that area• Recommend any necessary changes to attendance boundaries anticipating the
projected enrollments• Change boundaries to utilize school capacity• Reserve capacity at schools serving residential growth areas• Identify adjustment methods in the event that minor adjustments are needed in the
future
3
Decision Making Process
• Committee with wide representation and viewpoints • Met six times over three months reviewing extensive amounts of data and options• Developed an understanding of enrollment trends and enrollment projection
methods• Established objectives for drawing new boundary lines and implementing the
changes• Used sophisticated computer mapping (Geographic Information Systems-GIS) to
display many types of information• Developed boundary options and minor variations • Evaluated how well the various options met objectives
• Consensus recommendation of committee to the School Board for new boundary lines
4
Objectives• For establishing elementary boundaries
• Anticipate enrollment change districtwide and by elementary school in order to utilize available capacity of the schools
• Balance class size for instructional, administrative, and financial reasons• Assigned to the closest school to minimize travel time for students• Keep families/neighborhoods together
• For implementing the boundary changes• Reroute buses to minimize travel time • Minimize the number of students and families reassigned, while reserving capacity
for future• Review guidelines, policies, processes and practices regarding student assignment
• For the future• Establish annual review process to monitor plan• Develop an adjustment mechanism to maintain the plan as long as possible
The Major Questions to Be Answered
• What are the capacities of the existing elementary schools to provide a modern educational program?
• What are the projected enrollments of the existing elementary attendance areas?
• Can the existing facilities accommodate projected enrollments?
• How much, if any, additional capacity is needed?
• Can reassignment of students from one elementary school to another accommodate the projected enrollments?
• How long will new attendance areas remain adequate?
• Can the longevity of new attendance areas be extended through interim adjustment methods?
Preview of Recommended Boundaries
• Preview for overall understanding of areas and extent of redistricting
• The data and reasons for each area will be explained individually
• General background information will be provided first to demonstrate why the extent of redistricting is required and where
7
8
Proposed moves are dots with color different from area shading.
Data and objectives for each area will be explained later.
From York Haven to Orendorf
From Orendorfto Mt. Wolf
From Conewagoto Orendorf
Enrollment is Affected by Economic Factors• Birth rates declined by 10% from 2009 to 2014 resulting in 30 fewer
students per birth year (age cohort). This is a known phenomenon when severe economic recession causes insecurity about jobs. In other school districts in Pennsylvania, the decline was as much as 30%.
• The residential growth required to offset birth rate decline is calculated as follows:• 500 single family homes yield 0.93 students per home equals 465 new students
divided by 13 grade levels (K plus grades 1-12) equals 36 students per grade level (age cohort)
• In summary, it takes almost 500 new homes to offset birth rate decline in the age group currently entering as Kindergarten students.
• While you can see new homes and expect crowded schools, declining birth rates are not apparent.
• Great Recession of 2008-09 continues to impact enrollment• Birth rates took several years to rebound to 2009 levels• Pent-up demand for new housing is slowing• Normal economic cycles can change again, possibly soon
9
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
ConewagoElementary
Mount WolfElementary
OrendorfElementary
York HavenElementary
Shallow BrookIntermediate
School
Spring ForgeIntermediate
School
NortheasternMiddle School
NortheasternHigh School
Students Per School
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Grade Level (0=K)
Students Per Grade Level
Difference of 2 to 3 classes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No
np
ub
lic s
tud
ents
Grade Levels
Non-public Students Per Grade
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Public and Non-Public by Grade
Non-Public Public
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 9 10 11 12 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3
Conewago Elementary Mount Wolf Elem Northeastern High School NortheasternMiddle School
Orendorf Elementary Shallow BrookIntermediate School
Spring Forge IntermediateSchool
York Haven Elementary
Students by School / Grade
Annual adjustment of staffing levels is required as age cohort progresses.
Class Size Trends-Kindergarten (guideline 18-20)School Classroom Grade 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Conewago C102 K 18 17 16 16 18 19
Conewago C104 K 19 17 17 18 17 20
Conewago C106 K 18 18 15 16 17 19
Conewago C108 K 19 17 17 17 18 19
Conewago C201 K 17 18 13 14 17 20
Mt Wolf W107 K 20
Mt Wolf W203 K 19 17 16 17 12 16
Mt Wolf W204 K 14 15 14 11 16
Mt Wolf W206 K 21 15 15 16 10 15
Orendorf Z101 K 21 21 19 18 19 18
Orendorf Z102 K 21 21 17 19 17 18
Orendorf Z103 K 17 19 18
Orendorf Z104 K 18 21 14 20 19 16
Orendorf Z105 K 19 22 17 19
York Haven Y203 K 18 15 12 11 16 19
York Haven Y205 K 19 18 14 11 14 20
York Haven Y207 K 19 17 17 11 16 21
York Haven Y209 K 18 18 17 14 16 20
Lower class size than other schools
One classroom available
Class Size Trends-Grade 1 (guideline 20-22)
School Classroom Grade 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Conewago C203 01 23 18 19 16 17 17
Conewago C204 01 23 19 18 17 19 18
Conewago C205 01 23 18 18 18 19 18
Conewago C206 01 20 18 17 15 19 15
Conewago C208 01 17 14 16 18 18
Mt Wolf W105 01 3 3 17 14 13
Mt Wolf W106 01 20 20 16 12 13 18
Mt Wolf W107 01 21 14 16 16 19
Mt Wolf W108 01 21 21
Orendorf Z107 01 23 20 19 20 18 18
Orendorf Z108 01 24 21 18 23 21 19
Orendorf Z109 01 22 22 20 22 19 19
Orendorf Z110 01 22 21 20 22 19 18
York Haven Y210 01 18 21 16 17 22 20
York Haven Y211 01 14 17 11 14 18 19
York Haven Y212 01 18 19 15 18
York Haven Y213 01 18 18 13 17 20 19
Reduced from 3 to 2 classes to balance class size
Reduced from 4 to 3 classes
Class Size Trends-Grade 2 (guideline 20-22)School Classroom Grade 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Conewago C202 02 21 18 21 22
Conewago C303 02 26 22 18 23 23 19
Conewago C304 02 26 19 21 23 21 17
Conewago C305 02 23 23 21 19 22 16
Conewago C400 02 20
Conewago C405 02 15
Mt Wolf W105 02 2 2 13
Mt Wolf W200 02 22 19 21 17 14 15
Mt Wolf W202 02 21 19 18 17 14
Mt Wolf W205 02 18 19
Mt Wolf W207 02 17 15 14
Orendorf Z202 02 18 22 23 23 23 18
Orendorf Z203 02 16 24 20 22 24 21
Orendorf Z204 02 17 23 20 23 20 19
Orendorf Z205 02 21 24 22 22 23 18
Orendorf Z206 02 22
York Haven Y103 02 20 21 22 19 18 22
York Haven Y105 02 18 19 19 16 15 19
York Haven Y107 02 22 21 21 22 20 22
York Haven Y212 02 19
Lower class sizes than other schools
Higher class sizes than other schools, still within guidelines
Increase 1 class to lower class sizes
One classroom available
Class Size Trends-Grade 3 (guideline 22-24)School Classroom Grade 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Conewago C306 03 25 18 23 18 23 23
Conewago C307 03 22 19 19 21 24 24
Conewago C308 03 24 18 23 19 20 22
Conewago C309 03 22 20 22 21 24 24
Mt Wolf W108 03 20 21 17 15
Mt Wolf W202 03 13
Mt Wolf W205 03 16 20 18
Mt Wolf W207 03 15 22 20
Mt Wolf W208 03 15 21 19 22 18 13
Orendorf Z207 03 18 18 23 20 21 24
Orendorf Z208 03 22
Orendorf Z209 03 17 18 24 23 22 25
Orendorf Z210 03 24 18 24 20 22 24
Orendorf Z211 03 24 20 21 23 24 24
York Haven Y108 03 19 17 18 21 16 16
York Haven Y109 03 23 19 21 21 24 18
York Haven Y110 03 20
York Haven Y111 03 24 21 20 20 22 19
Higher class sizes
Lower class sizes, much decline in 2 years
138 total divided by 7 classes = 20/class
One classroom available
Increase / Decrease Age <5, 5-9, 10-14
2016 ACS vs 2010 Census
Losing elementary age population in all age
groups
Gaining elementary age population in all
age groups
Large decrease in <5 relative to
other age groups
19
Significant enrollment change in many neighborhoods in the past decade
Increase / Decrease Age 5-9
2016 ACS vs 2010 Census
20
Increase / Decrease Age <5
2016 ACS vs 2010 Census
Forewarning of future Kindergarten enrollments
Conclusions from Analysis of Class Size Trends
• Over six years, class sizes are more balanced, with less variation between the smallest and largest at each grade level.
• Class sizes have become smaller over time. This is common in schools districts in the past few years due in part to unknown birth rate decline.
• Third grade class size is much higher at Orendorf and Conewago compared to Mt. Wolf.
• Mt. Wolf has the lowest class sizes at all grade levels due to neighborhood change.
• Enrollments from many neighborhoods have changed significantly as children in younger families age, new homes are built, and older homes are sold to younger families.
School Capacity for Modern Educational Program
• Modern educational programs require more small group instruction (SGI) spaces.
• Some programs have been placed in schools with space available due to enrollment decline.
• Ideally, each school would have a fixed number of full-size classrooms for regular education and other programs would be distributed to all schools. Because age cohorts (students at a grade level) differ in size within an attendance area, the number of teachers/classes is adjusted to meet class size guidelines.
• Full size classroom space is available at Mt. Wolf and Orendorf, but will require relocation of some small group uses currently in full size classrooms.
• Due to ongoing residential development, classroom space should be reserved at Conewago and York Haven.
• Although undesirable, a few classrooms could be available by finding other locations for shared spaces
• IU Fair Share-each district must house some IU wide programs, for low incidence programs serving several districts
• Headstart
Long-term Planning-To be sure short-term plans work long-term• What do enrollment projections predict?
• How much residential growth should we expect?
• Where will residential growth occur?
• How accurately can we predict residential growth by elementary attendance area?
• Note: Enrollment projections prior to the Great Recession predicted enrollments as much as 50% (2000 students) more than actually occurred due to the inability to predict birth rate decline caused by severe economic insecurity.
24
Enrollment ProjectionsUsing actual enrollments, calculate the historic rate of change, apply that rate to project future enrollments
Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2011-2012 299 312 330 308 316 343 279 299 284 272 274 224 246 3786
2012-2013 305 274 301 309 317 324 330 276 304 260 266 259 213 3738
2013-2014 305 301 276 299 311 313 321 320 272 278 245 259 231 3731
2014-2015 286 316 302 277 298 323 315 323 312 262 259 248 230 3751
2015-2016 287 292 312 309 273 296 331 323 325 316 258 239 222 3783
2016-2017 265 287 311 315 316 282 299 320 322 306 307 230 226 3786
2017-2018 263 276 295 303 307 329 290 316 338 297 300 294 214 3822
2018-2019 291 253 272 300 313 315 328 307 323 306 303 278 258 3847
Birth to K Birth to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 10 to 11 11 to 12
2011-12 to 2012-13 1.08541 1.04981 0.96474 0.93636 1.02922 1.02532 0.96210 0.98925 1.01672 0.91549 0.97794 0.94526 0.95089
2012-13 to 2013-14 1.07018 1.07117 1.00730 0.99336 1.00647 0.98738 0.99074 0.96970 0.98551 0.91447 0.94231 0.97368 0.89189
2013-14 to 2014-15 0.98282 1.10877 1.00332 1.00362 0.99666 1.03859 1.00639 1.00623 0.97500 0.96324 0.93165 1.01224 0.88803
2014-15 to 2015-16 1.0361 1.00344 0.98734 1.02318 0.98556 0.99329 1.02477 1.02540 1.00619 1.01282 0.98473 0.92278 0.89516
2015-16 to 2016-17 1.06507 1.00962 1.02265 1.03297 1.01014 0.96677 0.99690 0.94154 0.97152 0.89147 0.94561
2016-17 to 2017-18 1.02787 0.97428 0.97460 1.04114 1.02837 1.05686 1.05625 0.92236 0.98039 0.95765 0.93043
2017-18 to 2018-19 0.98551 1.01695 1.03300 1.02606 0.99696 1.05862 1.02215 0.90533 1.02020 0.92667 0.87755
2018-19 to 2019-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note: Conditional formatting by column.
-59 -58
Selecting Rate of Change for ProjectionsYear K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Birth to K K to 1
2011-12 to 2012-13 0.916388 0.96474 0.93636 1.02922 1.02532 0.96210 0.98925 1.01672 0.91549 0.97794 0.94526 0.95089
2012-13 to 2013-14 0.986885 1.00730 0.99336 1.00647 0.98738 0.99074 0.96970 0.98551 0.91447 0.94231 0.97368 0.89189
2013-14 to 2014-15 1.036066 1.00332 1.00362 0.99666 1.03859 1.00639 1.00623 0.97500 0.96324 0.93165 1.01224 0.88803
2014-15 to 2015-16 1.020979 0.98734 1.02318 0.98556 0.99329 1.02477 1.02540 1.00619 1.01282 0.98473 0.92278 0.89516
2015-16 to 2016-17 1 1.06507 1.00962 1.02265 1.03297 1.01014 0.96677 0.99690 0.94154 0.97152 0.89147 0.94561
2016-17 to 2017-18 1.041509 1.02787 0.97428 0.97460 1.04114 1.02837 1.05686 1.05625 0.92236 0.98039 0.95765 0.93043
2017-18 to 2018-19 0.961977 0.98551 1.01695 1.03300 1.02606 0.99696 1.05862 1.02215 0.90533 1.02020 0.92667 0.87755
2018-19 to 2019-20 AVG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Average, 3 year 1.00116 1.02615 1.00028 1.01009 1.03339 1.01182 1.02741 1.02510 0.92307 0.99070 0.92526 0.91786
Average, 5 year 1.01211 1.01382 1.00553 1.00250 1.02641 1.01332 1.02277 1.01130 0.94906 0.97770 0.94216 0.90736
Uptrending
Downtrending
Rate Selected 1.04363 1.0583 1.01382 1.00553 1.00250 1.03339 1.01332 1.05862 1.02510 0.90533 1.02020 0.94216 0.87755
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2019-20 303 302 256 274 301 323 319 347 315 292 312 285 244
2020-21 309 307 306 258 274 311 328 338 356 285 298 294 251
2021-22 315 313 311 307 259 283 315 347 346 322 291 281 258
2022-23 321 320 318 313 308 267 287 333 356 314 329 274 247
2023-24 328 326 324 319 314 319 271 304 342 322 320 310 240
Plus 30 in 5 years Minus 37 in 5 years
If 3 yr trend, choose
most recent year.
Note: Conditional formatting by entire matrix.
Selection of Rate of Change
Projected Enrollment
• Enrollments can be accurately projected several years into the future at a district level, but less accurately at a school level. Therefore, projections should be updated annually upon known fall enrollments in October.
• Past enrollment projections have significantly overstated future enrollments, in part because they could not anticipate the impact of the Great Recession.
• The survival/grade progression rates used in the projection methodology are a composite rating of birth rates, past trends of residential growth, and the ratio of public to other schools (nonpublic, charter, homeschooling)
• Age cohorts (each graduating class) can be increasing at certain grade levels while decreasing at others, resulting in bubbles progressing through the grade levels. This requires annual adjustment of staffing levels.
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2019-20 303 302 256 274 301 323 319 347 315 292 312 285 244 3874
2020-21 309 307 306 258 274 311 328 338 356 285 298 294 251 3914
2021-22 315 313 311 307 259 283 315 347 346 322 291 281 258 3949
2022-23 321 320 318 313 308 267 287 333 356 314 329 274 247 3986
2023-24 328 326 324 319 314 319 271 304 342 322 320 310 240 4038
Change 2019-20 to
2023-24 25 24 68 46 Plus 30 in 5 years Minus 37 in 5 years
Total increase in K to 3 163
Total
Change 164
The Impact of Residential Growth
• Questions• How much residential growth can be expected?• Where might it occur?
• Process to understand current projects and future growth potential• Analyzed all subdivision and land development activity from 1985 to now from York
County Planning Commission• Spoke with municipal officials, developers, realtors• Visited each project-in January to see the extent of completion, again in April to see
ongoing construction activity• Calculated: remaining units approved for construction X demographic multipliers • Estimated build out/completion schedules based on builder, developer and realtor
input, realizing that there is much uncertainty in build out/completion schedules caused by market conditions, competition, supply, and mortgage rates
• Considered the impact of industrial and warehouse development on new job opportunities and demand for new housing
28
Total Population Change, 2000-2016
Planned Growth Areas and Wastewater Treatment
Planned Growth Areas and Wastewater TreatmentNotes: Growth is planned for center of District
Zoning in Northeastern School District
Notes: Large residential zoning districts exist around Conewago, Mt. Wolf, and Orendorf Elementary Schools
Subdivision and Land Development Activity 2011-2019Yellow dots are residential, purple squares are industrial, red squares are commercialTable at bottom shows all subdivision and land development by type of housing and proposed number of dwellings
Residential Growth-Number of Lots SubdividedSubdivision precedes building permit
Darker blue are most recent.
Dot size shows number of lots.
35
Conewago E. Manchester Manchester Mt. Wolf York Haven
1985 to 2004 1198 1784 6439 1 10
2005-2019 940 438 558 0 5
1198
1784
6439
1 10
940
438558
0 50
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Pro
po
sed
Dw
ellin
g U
nit
s
Dwelling Units in Subdivision and Land Development Plans1985-2004 and 2005-2019
1985 to 2004 2005-2019
36
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
York Haven 1 2 2 1 1 1 6
Mt. Wolf 1 2 1 1 1
Newberry 124 163 98 126 145 159 110 128 102 96 107 106 124 65 79 49 56 21 19 30 30 25 26 40 39 47 47
Manchester 57 161 154 165 103 128 171 253 255 195 212 232 265 192 289 138 79 46 31 35 32 32 31 29 26 26 24
East Manchester 52 40 51 44 35 58 53 72 57 48 43 107 130 172 101 39 73 35 30 15 18 21 12 35 36 37 28
Conewago 22 41 43 34 47 23 24 35 40 8 25 64 84 99 186 79 91 149 132 59 39 27 52 33 42 52 39
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Building Permits-1991 to 2017
Conewago East Manchester Manchester Newberry Mt. Wolf York Haven
Only a small part of Newberry Township is in the school district.
Manchester’s share was large in the early years, but Conewago has the largest share in the past decade.
Conclusions from Land Use Planning and Residential Subdivisions
• Some existing subdivisions precede County Growth Management Plans
• Growth Management Plans may be inconsistent with municipal zoning
• Most recent subdivisions, although smaller than the past, have been around Conewago
• Many industrial and commercial subdivisions, including the large warehouse projects will have several impacts:• more tax revenue eventually
• job creation and need for housing
• road improvements will be needed with possible construction during the school year
• strong working relationship with municipalities will be needed
37
The Impact of Residential Growth
• How much can be expected?
• Where might it occur?
• Process to understand current projects and future potential• Spoke with municipal officials, developers, realtors• Visited each project-in January to see the extent of completion, again now to
see ongoing construction activity• Calculated: remaining units approved for construction X demographic
multipliers • Uncertainty in build out/completion schedules caused by market conditions,
competition, supply, and mortgage rates
38
Students Expected by Type of Residence
Per
Household
Estimates
If 100
Dwelling
Units
Per
Grade
Level
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Single Family Units
All Single Family, Own or Rent
All Sizes 0.594 59.4 4.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
3 Bedroom 0.573 57.3 4.4 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
4 Bedroom 0.932 93.2 7.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Multi-Family Units
All Multi-Family, Own or Rent
All Sizes 0.191 19.1 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
2 Bedroom 0.262 26.2 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
2-4 Unit Structure, Own or Rent, All Sizes 0.263 26.3 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
5+ Unit Structure, Own or Rent, All Sizes 0.141 14.1 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Per Grade Level Per Year with 5
Year Buildout, if equally
distributedMultiplier Estimates for householders
that moved into the unit between 2008
and 2015 in Pennsylvania
School-Age Children
Demographic Multipliers for School-Age Children
39Source: Who Moves Into Pennsylvania Housing-2015 Residential Demographic Multipliers, Econsult Solutions November 2017
40
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
K 1 2 3
Demographic Multiplier-Sherman Oaks vs. Demographic Multiplier for Single Family Divided Equally by 13 Grade Levels
Sherman Oaks Demographic Multiplier/13 grades
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
K 1 2 3
Demographic Multiplier-Chestnut Valley Actual vs. Demographic Multiplier for Single Family Divided Equally by 13 grade levels
Actual Demographic Multiplier /13 grade
Active Residential Projects
42
First
Phase
Last
Phase Ap
pro
ved
Bu
ilt
Rem
ain
ing
to b
e B
uilt
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Bennett Run 2000 2016 Conewago 564 489 75 0.932 70 66 5 20 7 7 7
Hunter Creek 1998 2008 Conewago 131 121 10 0.932 9 9 1 3 1 1 1
Stonegate 2003 2015 Conewago 201 132 69 0.932 64 61 5 19 6 6 6
Hickory Ridge 2006 2011 Conewago 124 12 112 0.932 104 99 8 31 6 6 6 6 6
Locust Run 2005 2005 Conewago 153 64 89 0.573 51 48 4 15 5 5 5
Total 25 25 25 6 6
Rolling Meadows 2005 York Haven 227 150 77 0.932 72 68 5 21 7 7 7
Lexington Estates York Haven 180 48 132 0.932 123 117 9 36 7 7 7 7 7
Highlands 2011 York Haven 108 93 15 0.932 14 13 1 4 1 1 1
Total 16 16 16 7 7
Name of Development
Conewago Area
York Haven Area
Approval
Dates
Proposed Dwelling
Units
Dem
ogr
aph
ic
Mu
ltip
lier
Tota
l Sch
oo
l Age
Ch
ildre
n
Pu
blic
Sch
oo
l
Stu
den
ts (
95
%)
Per
Gra
de
Leve
l
Tota
l Stu
den
ts
K t
o 3
rd g
rad
e
Attendance
Area
Estimated Buildout Schedule in
the Future
Applying Objectives to Redrawing Boundary Lines• Locate all students on the GIS map by geocoding
• Display students with a different color dot by school attended
• Set a fixed number of classrooms at each grade level at each school (administrative and instructional advantages of set number)• Conewago 4 classrooms per grade level
• Mt. Wolf 3 classrooms per grade level
• Orendorf 5 classrooms per grade level
• York Haven 3 classrooms per grade level
• Adjust boundaries to determine the number of students at each grade level at each school, reserving excess capacity at schools with most anticipated residential growth (Conewago and York Haven)
• Determine if staffing adjustments will be necessary because of different counts of students by grade level (example: 56 in K, 43 in 1st, 56 in 2nd)
• Refine by moving boundaries slightly using objectives established
43
44
Proposed moves are dots with color different from area shading.
Data and objectives for each area will be explained later.
From York Haven to Orendorf
From Orendorfto Mt. Wolf
From Conewagoto Orendorf
Recommendation: Reassign Sherman Oaks from Orendorf to Mt. Wolf
• Objectives• Utilize Mt. Wolf capacity
• Available due to small class sizes in recent years
• Available due to a vacant classroom
• Assign students to closest school, now riding several minutes beyond the closest school (see map on following slide)
• Impacts• Provides more capacity at Orendorf, the most central school capable of
serving all areas
45
Drive Time Analysis-Mt. Wolf
Recommendation: Reassign Rural Students from York Haven to Orendorf• Objectives
• Reserve capacity in York Haven for expected residential growth
• Assign students to closest school
• Utilize available capacity at Orendorf available due to:• Orendorf has 24 full size classrooms, even with 5 classrooms per grade level, 4 remain
for other uses
47
Drive Time Analysis-Orendorf
Recommendation: Reassign Southwestern Conewago Township from Conewago to Orendorf
• Objectives• Reserve capacity for expected growth in Conewago
• Utilize Orendorf capacity
• Make transportation improvements to minimize added ride time
• Impacts• Students living on both sides of the Canal Road frontage will
remain at Conewago in order to reduce ride time from the southern area
• Transportation improvements will minimize ride time
49
Subdivision by location, year, and number of lots
Dark blue dots are most recent
Bennett Run-surrounding ConewagoElementary• 8 phases from 1999 to 2022/2024• 3-5 years to completion per exclusive
builder• All within walking zone with sidewalks, 81
walkers (if bused, cost of $85,000+/year)
52
Stonegate, 4 Phases
Phase 3, 47 units, 2015
Phase 4, 31 units, 2015
ConewagoElementary
Hunter Creek
Stonegate
53
Minimizing Travel Time
From the intersection with the traffic light,the distance/time to Conewago is 1.3 miles/2 minutes and toOrendorf it's 3.8 miles/8 minutes. Therefore, the difference for a bus traveling from the southwest corner of Northeastern York School District to either Orendorf rather than ConewagoElementary is 2.5 miles and 6 minutes.
Transportation Improvements • The committee reviewed transportation in detail looking at current and
future ride times especially for areas redistricted.
• Any redistricting will require changes to bus routes, with some riding longer than previously.
• Therefore, while buses are rerouted, we will try to minimize ride time. In general, we had the objective of assigning students to the closest school measured by drive time, not distance (straight line or on road network). Therefore, ride time for all students in total should be minimized.
• With residential growth, it is likely that another bus will be needed.
• Some attention to transportation practices can help• Riders with the long ride in the morning get the shorter ride in afternoon, if possible• Inform parents to have students ready so buses don’t have to wait long, too often
causing traffic congestion on busy roads
54
Implementation
• Communicate Plan• Committee recommendation presented to the School Board
• Separate presentations at schools where most students are affected?• At Orendorf for students in the southwestern area of Conewago
• At Mt. Wolf for students in Sherman Oaks
• Welcoming meetings set up by Principals for incoming students and families in late-May
• Webpost the presentation on the website
• Lists to be available at the schools or district office-addresses by school
• Transportation-Major effort to shorten the longer bus ride times
55
QuestionsDr. Sidle and Mr. Schoch
56