STUDENT REASSIGNMENT REPORT
description
Transcript of STUDENT REASSIGNMENT REPORT
a
STUDENT REASSIGNMENT
REPORT
NRMPS BOARD OF EDUCATION
a
STUDENT REASSIGNMENT
REPORT
NRMPS BOARD OF EDUCATION
STAFFSTUDENTS
PARENTS COMMUNITY
IT’S POSSIBLE
POSSIBLITIES
IT’S POSSIBLE
POSSIBILITIES
4
TIME-LINE
Jan-Aug 2012 Committee
Deliberations/ Monthly Reports to the School Board
Aug - 2012Committee
Recommendations Presented to the
School Board
Aug – Dec 2012Public Input/ Community
Engagement
Board of Education Approval
August 2013Implementation
Contiguous boundaries
Respect neighbor-
hoods
Proximity to schools
Modify feeder
systems
Stay within enrollment capacities
Consider anticipated
growth
Enrollment balance
5
Board of Education Priorities.
COMBINED MAP
Lessens reassignment impact Better balances student metrics Better aligns feeder patterns Contiguous attendance zones Addresses many utilization
concerns
7
OUTCOMES
• 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.
8
Student Balance Metrics
HIGH SCHOOL DATA
PROPOSED HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS
High School Attendance ZonesCurrent/Recommended
(See data tables in handouts.)
Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
9-12 Student Count
Nash Central Northern Nash
Rocky Mount Southern Nash
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%Statistics based on residence
(2011 geocode).
Does not measure impact
of special programs such
as IB.
HS Utilization
HIGH SCHOOL MOBILE UNIT13-14
Enrollment Current Proposed Gain/(Loss)
SCHOOL 9-12 Count Capacity Mobile Units Mobile Units 13/14
Nash Central 1116 1150 4 2 (2)
Northern Nash 1234 1150 3 3 0
Rocky Mount 1391 1390 - - 0
Southern Nash 1057 1068 7 2 (5)
14 7 -7
Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
HS Minority %
Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
HS Free/Reduced Lunch %
Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
HS Academic Proficiency %
These data reflect the percent of students who passed both Math and Reading EOG’s in grades 4-9
HS STUDENTS IMPACTEDFROM TO 9 10 11 12 Tot
NCHS Northern Nash High 91 84 76 61 312
NNHS Rocky Mount High 74 79 57 63 273
RMHS Northern Nash High 1 1 2
SNHS Nash Central High 49 45 48 43 185
Total 214 208 182 168 772
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
English I
NCHS NNHS RMHS SNHS 0
20406080
100
56 6149.6 54.3
78 80 79 75
2010-11** 2011-12
NCHS NNHS RMHS SNHS 0
20
40
60
80
10079 74 70
8573 78 72
84
2010-11 2011-12
Mathematics
HS COMPOSITE
NCHS NNHS RMHS SNHS 62.00%
64.00%
66.00%
68.00%
70.00%
72.00%
74.00%
76.00%
78.00%
80.00%
10-11 Composite
11-12 Composite
GRADUATION RATE
GRADUATION RATE
WLG NCHS ECHS NNHS RMHS SNHS District0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
50.0
74.4
95.7
81.577.2 79.4 76.7
2009-102010-11
MIDDLE SCHOOL DATA
PROPOSED MIDDLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Middle School Attendance ZonesCurrent/Recommended
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash NEW MS (RM HS site)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
6-8 Student Count
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash
NEW MS (RM HS site)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
MS Utilization
MIDDLE SCHOOL MOBILE UNITS
13-14 Current Proposed Gain/(Loss)
Name 6-8 Count Capacity Mobile Units Mobile Units 13/14
EMS 488 827 2 - (2)
NCMS 614 670 2 1 (1)
PMS 353 557 1 1 0
ROMS 890 850 4 4 0
SNMS 946 850 6 2 (4)
New Middle 513 750 - - 0
15 8 -7
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash NEW MS (RM HS site)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
MS Minority %
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash NEW MS (RM HS site)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MS Free/Reduced Lunch %
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
MS Academic Proficiency %
These data reflect the percent of students who passed both Math and Reading EOG’s in grades 4-9
From To 6 7 8 Total
EMSNEW Mid 83 74 83 240
Parker Mid 60 52 59 171
NCMSEdwards Mid 57 57 56 170
NEW Mid 42 45 36 123
PMSNEW Mid 38 37 33 108
Red Oak Mid 41 57 45 143
ROMNash Central Mid 45 42 34 121
NEW Mid 17 12 13 42
SNMS Nash Central Mid 61 47 45 153
Total 444 423 404 1271
MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS IMPACTED
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
READING
NCMS Edwards Parker ROMS SNMS 0
20
40
60
80
5158 57
70 6856 58 58
73 7060 60 62
73 71
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Linear (2011-12 )
NCMS Edwards Parker ROMS SNMS 0
20
40
60
80
100
64 71 7084 81
69 69 7284 81
69 66 7385 81
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
MATHEMATICS
ALGEBRA I - MS
NCMS Edwards Parker ROMS SNMS 85%
90%
95%
100%
105%
95% 96%
91%
98%100%
Proficiency
COMPOSITE
NCMS Edwards Parker ROMS SNMS 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
56%64% 62%
76% 74%
61% 64% 64%
79% 75%
64%59%
65%
79% 76%
2009-20102010-20112011-2012
ELEMENTARY DATA
PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Elementary School Attendance ZonesCurrent/Recommended
Bailey Baskerville Benvenue Cedar Grove
Coopers Johnson MB Hubbard
Middlesex Nashville Pope Red Oak/Swift Creek
Spring Hope Williford Winstead/Englewood
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
K-5 Student Count
Bailey
Baske
rville
Benve
nue
Cedar
Grove
Coope
rs
John
son
MB Hub
bard
Middles
ex
Nashv
illePop
e
Red O
ak/S
wift Cree
k
Spring
Hop
e
Williford
Winstea
d/Eng
lewoo
d0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
ES Utilization
ELEMENTARY MOBILE UNITSSCHOOL 13-14 Current Proposed Gain/(Loss)
K-5 Count Capacity Mobile Units Mobile Units 13/14Bailey 620 664 1 - (1)
Baskerville 372 427 - - 0 Benvenue
680 668 6 2 (4)Cedar Grove 221 223 2 2 0
Coopers 624 601 3 1 (2)Johnson * 472 575 - - 0
M B Hubbard 492 512 4 - (4)Middlesex 340 418 - - 0 Nashville 709 682 2 2 0
Pope 279 311 2 - (2)Red Oak/
Swift Creek 589 810 2 2 0 Spring Hope 550 542 4 2 (2)Williford ** 437 581 1 - (1)Winstead/Englewood 1107 1133 4 2 (2)
31 13 -18
Bailey
Baske
rville
Benve
nue
Cedar
Grove
Coope
rs
John
son
MB Hub
bard
Middles
ex
Nashv
illePop
e
Red O
ak/S
wift Cree
k
Spring
Hop
e
Williford
Winstea
d/Eng
lewoo
d0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
ES Minority %
Bailey
Baske
rville
Benve
nue
Cedar
Grove
Coope
rs
John
son
MB Hub
bard
Middles
ex
Nashv
illePop
e
Red O
ak/S
wift Cree
k
Spring
Hop
e
Williford
Winstea
d/Eng
lewoo
d0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ES Free/Reduced Lunch %
Bailey
Baske
rville
Benve
nue
Cedar
Grove
Coope
rs
John
son
MB Hub
bard
Middles
ex
Nashv
illePop
e
Red O
ak/S
wift Cree
k
Spring
Hop
e
Williford
Winstea
d/Eng
lewoo
d0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Academic Proficiency %
These data reflect the percent of students who passed both Math and Reading EOG’s in grades 4-9
From To K-5 count K 1 2 3 4 5
Benvenue Elementary
Baskerville Elem 31 5 5 6 8 7
Red Oak/Swift Creek 6 1 2 1 1 1
Winstead/Englewood 26 6 7 4 5 1 3
Total ES 63
ELEMENTARY STUDENTS IMPACTED
Elementary School63
Middle School1271
High School772
Grand Total 2106
TOTAL STUDENTS IMPACTED
FEEDER PATTERNS
RMHSNCHS NNHSSNHS
SNMS
PMS
NCMS RMMS
EMS
ROMS
EMS
PMS
ELEMENTARY PERFORMANCE
READING
Bailey
Baske
rville
Benve
nue
Cedar
Grove
Coope
rs
DS John
son
Englew
ood
MB Hub
bard
Middles
ex
Nashv
ille
OR Pop
e
Spring
Hop
e
Swift Cree
k
Willi
ford
0
20
40
60
80
2009-102010-112011-12
MATHEMATICS
Bailey
Baske
rville
Benve
nue
Cedar
Grove
Coope
rs
DS John
son
Englew
ood
MB Hub
bard
Middles
ex
Nashv
ille
OR Pop
e
Spring
Hop
e
Swift Cree
k
Willi
ford
0
20
40
60
80
100
2009-102010-112011-12
COMPOSITE
Bailey
Baske
rville
Benve
nue
Cedar
Grove
Coope
rs
John
son
Englew
ood
Hubba
rd
Middles
ex
Nashv
ille
Pope
Spring
Hop
e
Swift Cree
k
Willi
ford
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
80% 79%
72%
78%80%
53%
68%64%
69%
88%
58%
65%
80%
44% 2009-20102010-20112011-2012
Transportation Analysis
Transportation Analysis
• Two models were examined to gauge proposed regular education bus runs with boundaries.
Model 1 - Maintain current school bell times. This model will allow pairing of the maximum amount of runs on same routes morning / afternoon.
Model 2 – Adjust school bell times between secondary and elementary schools by 15 minutes. This will allow pairing of the maximum amount of runs on same routes morning / afternoon.
Transportation Model Comparisons 2012-13 School
Year2013-14 Model 1
2013-14 Model 2
Number of Buses* 133 127 121
Total school year mileage on all buses 1,920,366 1,643,310 1,638,072
% Total Mileage with Students on Buses
71.4% 75.9% 76.2%
Average time students ride buses per day (AM / PM)
2 hours 24 minutes
2 hours 11 minutes
2 hours 18 minutes
School Year Cost to Operate Buses** $3,701,345.40 $3,171,589.20 $3,161,478.60
Estimated Annual Savings $529,756.20 $539,866.80
* - Based on eligible assigned students from 9/18/12 student database. Does not include EC, SOC, McKinney Vento, or Tar River Programs. Future assigned students subject to change.
** - Based on 2011-12 expenditures for regular school buses. Future expenditures subject to change.
Summary
• Proposed boundaries reduce overall mileage and ride times in all two models.
• Model 1 will allow us to maintain current start and end times during the 2013-2014 School Year
• Model 2 is the most optimal scenario for Transportation using proposed boundaries, however it would also require us to change starting and ending times at schools.
STAFFING IMPACT
FromStudents
Reassigned# of Teachers to Be
Reassigned
Total ES 63 3
Total MS 1271 51
Total HS 731 29
Grand Total 2065 83
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
K-12 SURVEY SUMMARY
RESOURCE & PROGRAM
EQUITY
ACADEMIC SUPPORTEMS PMS NCMS ROMS SNMS NCHS NNHS RMHS SNHS
CIS x x x x x x x
AVID x
AIG x x x x x
AP/ Dual Enrollment x x x x
EC x x x x x x x x x
LEP x x x x x x x x x
CTE Academy x x x x
CTE Exploratory x x x x x
IB Program x
CO-CURICULAR PROGRAMS
EMS PMS NCMS ROMS SNMS NCHS NNHS RMHS SNHS
Band x x x x x x x x x
Chorus x x x x x x x x x
Strings x x x x
Drama x x x
Dance x
Art x x x x x x x x x
ROTC x x x x
ATHLETICS EMS PMS NCMS ROMS SNMS NCHS NNHS RMHS SNHS
Football x x x x x x x x x
Soccer x x x x x x x x x
Track x x x x x x x x x
Tennis x
Offered No
Team x x
Offered No
Team x x x x
Volleyball x x x x x x x x x
Cheerleading x x x x x x x x x
Baseball x x x x x x x x x
Softball x x x x x x x x X
Wrestling x x x x x x x x x
ATHLETIC PROGRAMS
STATE GUIDELINES – ATHLETIC ELIGIBILITY
NCHSAA Athletic Guidelines Students may not transfer from one school to another for athletic
purposes: a school can not use athletic teams as a vehicle to solicit or
encourage a student-athlete or member of his or her family to enroll the student-athlete at a different school.
Student athletes who transfer to a school out-of-zone will cause the student-athlete to be ineligible for sports.
A student is eligible at his assigned school provided it meets LEA policy.
FLEXIBILITY OPTIONS
“Grandfathering”
FLEXIBILITY - OPTION 1ELEMENTARY
Offer NO grandfathering to elementary students. All current elementary students will attend their assigned school and matriculate through their reconfigured feeder pattern.
No preference for siblings
SECONDARY Allow flexibility for students entering the highest grades in affected schools.
8th Graders at Middle School; Allow students to remain Only through the completion of that school. This does not
allow them flexibility to attend HS out-of-zone. No preference for siblings
12th Graders Only. This will allows students entering the highest grades of all affected schools the option
to remain at the school previously attended.
TRANSPORTATION School bus transportation WILL NOT be provided for students electing to exercise this
clause.
Eligible students electing to exercise the Student Assignment Flexibility Option for the 2013-2014 school year must do so by the deadline established by the Board of
Education.
IMPACTStudents Eligible for
Flexibility OPTION 18th Graders
404Seniors
168 572
FLEXIBILITY - OPTION 2
ELEMENTARY Offer NO grandfathering to elementary students. All current elementary students will attend
their assigned school and matriculate through their reconfigured feeder pattern. No preference for siblings
SECONDARY Allow flexibility for students entering 8th Grader at Middle School;
Allow students to remain Only through the completion of that school. This does not allow them flexibility to attend HS out-of-zone.
No preference for siblings
Allow flexibility for continuing students in grades 11 and 12 Only. This will allows students entering these grades the option to remain at the school previously
attended.
TRANSPORTATION School bus transportation WILL NOT be provided for students electing to exercise
this flexibility provision.
IMPACTStudents
Eligible for Flexibility OPTION 2
8th Grade404
11th Grade 182
12th Grade 168 754
Eligible students electing to exercise the Student Assignment Flexibility Option for the 2013-2014 school year must do so by the deadline established by the Board of
Education.
QUESTIONS