Elementary Attendance Boundary Realignment (Design Development Process)

Westerville City Schools

January 28, 2013

1

2

Presentation Objective

• Present elementary student attendance boundary scenarios

– Ranging from neighborhood schools to balancing student demographics

• Caution: scenarios being presented are NOT recommendations

– Scenarios developed to share the impact when focusing on a particular realignment parameter

3

Timeline • January 14 √ Realignment overview to Board • January 16 √ Realignment Committee selection • January 28 √ Design Development Process

presented to Board • February 5 1st Committee Meeting • February 11 Options presented to Board • February 14 Open House (AM) followed by

Committee Meeting • February 19 Open House (PM) followed by

Committee Meeting • February 25 First Reading to Board • March 11 Board Approval • FY14 School Yr Implementation

4

The Realignment Committee

• Scott Ebbrecht Curriculum Coordinator (Co-chair)

• Jeff LeRose Exec Director Operations (Co-chair)

• Vaughn Bell Westerville African American Parent Association

• Jen Aultman Elem Programming Admin Committee

• Tracy Davidson Westerville Parent Council

• Rhonda Gilpin Westerville Education Association

• Aloma Gibbs Elementary Principal

• Sarah Berka Elementary Principal

• David Baker Executive Director Elementary

• Randy Snyder Transportation Routing Manager

5

Drivers for Elementary Realignment

• Create Attendance Boundary for Emerson/Hanby

• Facility Master Plan (October 2012)

– Capacity: Elementary Range = 29%, from 23% under (Pointview) to 6% over (Wilder)

– Ethnicity (non-white): Range = 47%, from 17% (Alcott) to 64% (Pointview)

– Economically Disadvantaged: Range = 66%, from 5% (Alcott) to 71% (Pointview)

6

Parameter Focus

• Current All students counted at home school

• Scenario 1 Balance Enrollment Capacities

• Scenario 2 Minimize Non-Contiguous Areas

• Scenario 3 Balance Demographics

• Scenario 4 Sunset Magnet Program

7

Process Tool: Planning Blocks

• Subsets of a schools attendance area

– Typically identified as neighborhoods or subsets of large neighborhoods

• Identify student profiles within the block area

• By reassigning planning blocks to different schools allows district to develop multiple attendance boundary options for consideration

Planning Block Map

Capacity Utilization %

9

School Current (Live-In)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Alcott 107 95 95 98 102

Annehurst 102 80 99 80 94

Cherrington 88 91 97 81 84

Emerson/Hanby 94 93 98 102

Fouse 113 89 92 92 108

Hawthorne 109 95 95 95 103

Huber Ridge 88 90 98 98 85

Mark Twain 118 96 78 96 110

McVay 121 100 82 100 109

Pointview 97 97 97 94 88

Robert Frost 79 81 80 81 74

Whittier 83 96 99 82 67

Wilder 119 95 95 95 108

Range 42 20 21 20 43

Free/Reduced %

10

School Current (Live-In)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Alcott 13 2 2 21 12

Annehurst 47 36 48 36 50

Cherrington 41 47 56 26 41

Emerson/Hanby 55 68 43 15

Fouse 21 6 6 24 22

Hawthorne 56 46 46 46 57

Huber Ridge 55 55 53 51 57

Mark Twain 35 42 17 42 36

McVay 31 25 23 25 33

Pointview 64 64 64 41 67

Robert Frost 20 20 6 20 21

Whittier 22 44 40 51 26

Wilder 35 37 37 37 37

Range 51 62 66 31 55

Ethnicity (non-white %)

11

School Current (Live-In)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Alcott 24 16 16 30 23

Annehurst 50 38 49 38 52

Cherrington 40 47 51 29 40

Emerson/Hanby 52 67 45 25

Fouse 28 17 17 32 29

Hawthorne 57 51 51 51 57

Huber Ridge 38 39 40 38 39

Mark Twain 42 48 20 48 43

McVay 36 29 27 29 39

Pointview 58 58 58 36 60

Robert Frost 26 25 15 25 26

Whittier 19 41 39 44 20

Wilder 37 39 39 39 39

Range 39 42 52 26 40

Student Impact

12

School Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Alcott 82 82 135 97

Annehurst 93 118 93 50

Cherrington 107 88 129 43

Emerson/Hanby

Fouse 165 148 300 56

Hawthorne 203 203 203 84

Huber Ridge 51

Mark Twain 106 275 106 70

McVay 100 183 100 88

Pointview 101 66

Robert Frost 64 26

Whittier 191 81 191 72

Wilder 113 113 113 73

Total 1160 1355 1471 776

Percentage 18% 21% 23% 12%

Current Westerville

CSD Ohio

Scenario 1: Focus on balancing enrollment capacities

Westerville

CSD Ohio

Current Westerville

CSD Ohio

Scenario 2: Focus on minimal non-contiguous areas

Westerville

CSD Ohio

Current Westerville

CSD Ohio

Scenario 3: Focus on balanced demographics

Westerville

CSD Ohio

Summary

19

Categories Current (Live-In)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Utilization (range) 42 20 21 20 43

Ethnicity (range) 38 42 52 26 40

Free/Reduced (range) 51 62 62 31 55

Student Impact 0 1160 1355 1471 776

Non-Contiguous Zones 11 11 5 19 11

Note: Orange indicates category focus

20

Next Steps

• First Committee Meeting

– February 5th at the ELC (9:30 AM)

– To develop options to be presented to the Board on February 11th

– Scenarios 1 thru 4 shall serve as a foundation for the committee’s work

• Community Open House

– February 14th at Huber Ridge (8:00 AM)

– February 19th at Alcott (6:30 PM)