Reassignment committee meeting january 30 - final-update1-31-12 2
-
Upload
nash-rocky-mount-public-schools -
Category
Education
-
view
2.724 -
download
2
Transcript of Reassignment committee meeting january 30 - final-update1-31-12 2
Student Reassignment Committee Organizational Meeting
Monday, January 30, 20126:00 p.m.
District Reassignment Committee
3
AGENDACOMMITTEE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
Auditorium, School Administration BuildingMonday, January 30, 2012
6:00 Welcome Mrs. Evelyn Bulluck,
ChairIntroductions
Charge to the Committee Dr. Anthony D. Jackson, Superintendent
Role of the Committee Chairs Role of the Committee Role of the Consultant School Board Priorities
Senate Bill 612 Mr. Wardlaw Lamar,
Esq., School Board Attorney ORED Mr. Mike Miller
Methodology Process Timeline
Communication Mrs. Sandy Drum, Public Information Officer
Questions Next Meeting February 13
4:00-5:30Central Office Auditorium
Co-Chairs
Carina Bryant Principal, Southern Nash Middle School
Victor WardDirector of Personnel
Principal Representatives - 3
Ann Mitchell, Elementary School Principal
Robin May, Middle School Principal Chip Hodges, High School Principal
COMMUNITY MEMBERS - 5
Tommy Stockdale, Eaton Corporation Kelley Deal Tem Myers, Wells Fargo Bank Tripp Evans, CW Williams Vanessa McCleary, City of Rocky
Mount
Staff Members - 4
Sherri Wells, Spring Hope Elementary Sylvia Anthony-McGeachy, Williford
Elementary Cindi Carpenter, Southern Nash Middle
School John Gay, Nash Central High School
Parents - 5
Tracy Proctor, Swift Creek Elementary Laticia Cavazos, Spring Hope Elementary Tracy Wiggins-Elliot, Middlesex Elementary LaTasha Sledge, Parker Middle/ Hubbard
Elementary Monica Whitehead, Rocky Mount High School
District Representatives 11 (Recommended by each School Board Member)
District 1 – Archie Jones District 2 - John Barnes District 3 - Reggie Mullen District 4 - Chet Osterhoudt District 5 - Melissa Dalsimer District 6 - Lester Weaver District 7 – Chris Miller District 8 – Pastor James Gailliard District 9 – Shirley Kelly-Morton District 10 – Ruth Bullard District 11 – Cynthia Dunston
Support Staff – Ex-Officio
Central Office Staff will serve as ex-officio members of the committee; providing support as needed.
Superintendent Assistant Superintendents Directors
SCHOOL BOARD PRIORITIES
Nash-Rocky Mount Public SchoolsJanuary 30, 2012
12
THE CHARGE
To prepare a recommendation and present a comprehensive student reassignment plan consistent with the priorities outlined by the board of education on or before August 2012.
After public input and final board approval, the plan will be implemented at the start of the 2013-2014 school year.
13
PROPOSED TIME-LINE
Jan-Aug 2012
Committee Deliberations/
Monthly Reports to the School
Board
Aug - 2012Committee
Recommendations Presented to
the School Board
Aug – Dec 2012
Public Input/ Community Engagement
Board of Education Approval
August 2013Implementati
on
14
PROCESS IS EVERYTHING
Board of
Education
Community Feedback
Committee
Committee Chairs
Public Engagement
Technical Support
OREDStaff
15
SCHOOL BOARD PRIORITIES
At its work session on January 23, the Nash-Rocky Mount Board of Education reached consensus on the following priorities to guide the Student Reassignment Committee’s preparation of recommendations for their consideration.
16
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.
School Board Priorities
17
School Board Priorities
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.
Senate Bill 612
Mr. Wardlaw Lamar, Esq.Mr. Lewis Lamar, Esq.
Nash-Rocky Mount Public SchoolsJanuary 30, 2012
Senate Bill 612 – Sec 17 (a) (b)
Sec. 17. (a) The Interim Board and the Nash-Rocky Mount Board ofEducation shall make their best efforts to achieve a racial balance in student enrollment, within plus or minus 12 percentage points of the system wide average minority student enrollment at the following schools:
Rocky Mount Senior High, Northern Nash Senior High and any new high school within the Nash-Rocky Mount School Administrative Unit, and any middle or junior high school that feeds any of these high schools.
A school will be considered to be in substantial compliance with the racial balance objectives of this paragraph if its racial balance is plus or minus 18 percentage points of the system wide average minority student enrollment.
(b) For all schools other than those covered in subsection (a) of this section, the Nash-Rocky Mount Board of Education will promote reasonable andpractical racial balance in the schools, utilizing and preserving neighborhood and voluntary schools to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, and consistent with sound educational practices.
Integrated Planning For School and Community
Michael Miller, Program ManagerOperations Research and Education Laboratory (OREd)Institute for Transportation Research and EducationCentennial CampusNorth Carolina State University
Nash-Rocky Mount Public SchoolsJanuary 30, 2012
21
Operations Research and Education Laboratory
OREd was founded in 1990 by Dr. Raymond Taylor (Professor Emeritus, College of Education, NCSU) to scientifically address politically sensitive school planning issues such as district membership projections, determining the location of new school sites, creating new attendance boundaries and demographic balance.
OREd has served school districts ranging from 4000 to 140,000 students in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi.
• Alamance–Burlington School System – 02, 03, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11
• Asheboro City Schools – 04, 05, 06, 07• Berkeley County Schools, SC – 09, 11• Bladen County Schools – 04• Buncombe County Schools – 98, 99• Brunswick County Schools – 03, 04• Carteret County Schools – 09**• Chapel/Carrboro Schools – 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 05, 06,
07• Chatham County Schools – 03, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11• Craven County Schools – 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 04, 05, 06,
07, 08**• Cumberland County Schools – 08, 09*• Cleveland County Schools – 08• Currituck County Schools – 09 • Duplin County Schools – 09**• Durham Public Schools – 08, 09, 11• Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County Schools – 07• Franklin County Schools – 08• Iredell-Statesville Schools – 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04• Jones County Schools – 09**• Johnston County Schools – 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 03,
04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11• Gaston County Schools – 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04• Granville County Schools – 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09• Guilford County Schools – 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 09• Harnett County Schools – 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 06, 07, 08, 09*,
10, 11
• Haywood County Schools – 99• Hoke County Schools – 99, 08, 09*, 11• Lee County Schools – 08, 09*• Lenoir County School – 09• Moore County Schools – 04, 07, 08, 09*• Mooresville Graded Schools – 99, 00, 01, 04 • Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools – 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09,
10, 11• New Hanover County Schools – 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00• Onslow County Schools – 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09**, 10, 11• Orange County Schools – 95, 09• Pamlico County Schools – 09**• Pender County Schools – 09**• Randolph County Schools – 05, 06, 07, 08, 09• Richmond County Schools – 00, 08*• Robeson County Schools – 08*• Rock Hill School District 3, SC – 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09,
10, 11• Rowan County Schools – 09• Pitt County Schools – 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,
00, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10• Stokes County Schools – 05, 06, 08• Union County Schools – 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07• Tupelo Public Schools, MS – 07• Vance County Schools – 09• Wayne County Schools – 95• Wake County Public School System – 97, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08,
09, 10, 11
“*” denote projects conducted as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activity through the BRAC Regional Task Force in Fayetteville, North Carolina“**” denote projects conducted as part of the Military Growth Task Force of North Carolina’s Eastern Region in Jacksonville, North Carolina
23
Integrated Planning for School And Community (IPSAC)
Data-driven and policy-based model for forecasting school enrollment and determining the optimal locations for new schools and attendance boundaries.
Forecasting Land Use Studies Out-of-Capacity Analysis Attendance Boundary Optimization School Site Optimization
OPPORTUNITY!
24
25
Opportunity for:
Examining current building utilization: What is current policy on building
utilization? Are some schools being over-utilized? Are some schools being under-utilized? Are NRMPS schools prepared for growth?
IPSAC and NRMPS
26
Opportunity for:
Examining current feeder patterns: What are current Elem > Mid > High
paths? How do transfer policies affect these
paths?
IPSAC and NRMPS
27
Opportunity for:
Examining student balance: What do we mean by “balancing” student
populations? What are current policies on balancing
student populations? What are current practices used by other
districts? What options are available to try to achieve
balance?
IPSAC and NRMPS
28
IPSAC and NRMPS
Process
Methodology
Timeline
29
Form Committee representing stakeholders Understand data & tools used Understand optimization and scenario
review process Communicate to Board and community Make recommendations to Board
IPSAC – Process
30
Compile supporting data GIS data
▪ Parcels, streets▪ Student geocodes▪ Planning segment review
District membership trends▪ NC DPI ADM for Month One
School building capacities
IPSAC – Process
31
Planning Segments
273 segments60 K-12 students/segment (2010-11 geocode)
Planning Segments currently under review.
32
Understand Inputs and Parameters District policy for reassignment What is the reassignment plan to
achieve? Utilization Feeder Patterns Balance
IPSAC – Process
33
Develop Scenario Assumptions Based on District policy Utilization Feeder patterns Balance Data-driven
IPSAC – Process
34
Optimal Attendance Zone Scenarios Understand impact of scenario
assumptions Understand connection between
scenario assumptions Review/Revise scenarios Transportation/access issues Keeping neighborhoods together
IPSAC – Process
Data-driven membership
forecast
School building
capacities
Optimization Algorithm
Optimal Attendance Zones
Optimal Attendance Zones
Balance index allowance
35
Optimal Attendance Zones
Scenario Review
Scenario Review/Revision Cycle
Track Edits & Update School
Data
36
37
Community engagement Community understanding of process What is important to NRMS parents?
IPSAC – Process
38
IPSAC – Methodology
School facility planning is often carried out within a complex, multi-layered, and poorly articulated environment.
The layers are qualitative and subjective, where even the best information is incomplete and constantly shifting.
School boards are subject to very specific, externally imposed limitations on their decisions when planning facilities and setting attendance boundaries.
School boards often change their decisions as they acquire new pieces of information. This invites negative press and erodes public confidence.
The failure to fully grasp all relevant information makes it impossible for the school board to articulate and defend its recommendations to the public.
This can have disastrous consequences when the budget must be approved or when school construction bond referenda are put before a public vote.
- Taylor, Vasu, Causby, INTERFACES Vol. 29, 1999
39
Optimization
Operations Research techniques solve large-scale optimization problems involving many variables and constraints.
The driving variable in the optimization algorithm is total distance traveled by students to school. The solutions generated 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
IPSAC – Methodology
40
IPSAC – Methodology
OR techniques allow the exploration of holistic scenarios that can provide maximum efficiency for the entire district.
41
Utilization/Capacity
Demographic Balance
Proximity
Feeder Pattern
IPSAC – Methodology
IPSAC – Timeline
42
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
Integrated Planning For School and Community
Michael Miller, Program ManagerOperations Research and Education Laboratory (OREd)Institute for Transportation Research and EducationCentennial CampusNorth Carolina State University
Nash-Rocky Mount Public SchoolsJanuary 30. 2012
Communications
Nash-Rocky Mount Public SchoolsJanuary 30, 2012
COMMUNICATIONS 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.
REPORTS TO THE BOARD
After the organizational meeting on Monday, January 30, 2012.
The committee will begin meeting in February with the charge to bring recommendations to the board no later than August 2012.
The co-chairs will provide updates to the board at the work session immediately following each of their committee meetings.
PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE
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