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.


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


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


Balance index allowance

35


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


40


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 – 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


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