3. STUDENT REASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Media Center, Nash Central High School
Monday, February 13, 2012
4:00
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of the Minutes from the January 30,
Committee Organizational Meeting
Committee Operating Procedures
Understanding the Optimization Process
Mike Miller ORED
Report to School Board 2/27/12
Questions
Next Meeting
Out of Capacity table and Scenario Data
Monday, March 26
6:00
3

4. Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools

5.  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.

6. Jan-Aug 2012 Aug - 2012 Aug – Dec 2012 August 2013
Committee Committee Public Input/ Community
Deliberations/ Recommendations Engagement Implementation
Monthly Reports to Presented to the
the School Board School Board Board of Education
Approval
6

7. Public Engagement
Board of
Education
Committee Chairs
Technical Support
Community Committee
Feedback ORED
Staff 7

8.  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.
8

9.  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.
9

10.  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
10

11. Michael Miller, Program Manager
Operations Research and Education Laboratory (OREd)
Institute for Transportation Research and Education
Centennial Campus
North Carolina State University
Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools

12.  Data Collection/Compilation
 GIS data
▪ Geocoding complete: School years 2006-07, 2008-
09, 2010-11, 2011-12
▪ Planning Segment review: On-going
 District membership trends
▪ NC DPI ADM for Month-One
 School building capacities
12

13. Planning Segment
Review
(Using current parcel data and
2011-12 NRMPS boundaries)
Segment boundary
before adjustment
Segment boundary
after adjustment
13

14. + 7 RLB per year
14

15. -310 K-12 per year
15

16. Forecast Models: (4,3,2,1) (1,1,1,1) Optimal
16

17. (Using Optimal Forecast Model)
17

18.  Forecast Options:
 Flat (Recommended)
▪ Capacity Adjustments for Growth Potential
 Optimal Forecast Model
18

19. Gain - HS Zones
 K-12 student count
 By residence
 2008-09 to 2011-12
19

20. Gain - ES Zones
 K-12 student count
 By residence
 2008-09 to 2011-12
20

21. Consensus on Forecast Options?
 Flat (Recommended)
▪ Capacity Adjustments for Growth Potential
 Optimal Forecast Model
21

22.  Assumptions
 Current classroom/program configuration
 “Brick and Mortar” capacity
 Functional capacity: 95%
22

23. Membership (DPI Month-
School Capacity Utilization
One ADM)
Bailey Elem 641 664 97%
Baskerville Elem 359 427 84%
Benvenue Elem 752 668 113%
Cedar Grove Elem 204 223 91%
Coopers Elem 657 601 109%
Johnson Elem 470 575 82%
Englewood Elem (3-5) 508 508 100%
Hubbard Elem 478 512 93%
Middlesex Elem 357 418 85%
Nashville Elem 734 682 107%
Pope Elem 274 311 88%
Red Oak Elem (K-2) 299 335 89%
Spring Hope Elem 546 542 101%
Swift Creek Elem (3-5) 317 475 67%
Williford Elem 418 581 72%
Winstead Ave. Elem(K-2) 532 625 85%
Total Elementary (K-5) 7546 8147 93%
23

24.  Current stated ES capacity: 8147
 Current ES membership: 7546
 8 schools at or above 90% utilization
 5 schools at or above 100% utilization
 37 mobile units (58 teaching stations/
classrooms) serving 11 of 16 elementary
schools.
24

25. Membership (DPI Month-
School Capacity Utilization
One ADM)
Nash Central Mid 605 670 90%
Edwards Mid 731 827 88%
Parker Mid 420 557 75%
Red Oak Mid 919 850 108%
Southern Nash Mid 1081 850 127%
Total Middle (6-8) 3756 3754 100%
Membership (DPI Month-
School Capacity Utilization
One ADM)
Nash Central High 1229 1150 107%
Northern Nash High 1210 1150 105%
Rocky Mount High 1151 1390 83%
Southern Nash High 1260 1068 118%
Total High (9-12) 4850 4758 102%
25

26.  Current stated MS capacity: 3754
 Current MS membership: 3756
 3 schools at or above 90% utilization
 2 schools at or above 100% utilization
 15 mobile units (28 teaching stations/
classrooms) serving 4 of 5 middle schools.
26

27.  Current stated HS capacity: 4758
 Current HS membership: 4850
 3 schools at or above 100% utilization
 16 mobile units (16 teaching stations/
classrooms) serving 3 of 4 high schools (and
Early College High).
27

28. Membership (DPI Month-
School
One ADM)
Greene Alt. (6-12) 95
Early College High (9-12) 207
Total 302
Alternative Schools
 Early College High currently over-utilized
 Alternative Schools not included in
reassignment process.
28

29. OPTIMIZATION
29

30. Operations Research techniques enable users to 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
30

31. OR techniques allow the
exploration of holistic
scenarios that can provide
maximum efficiency for
the entire district.
31

32. Optimal Attendance Zones
School Balance index
Membership building allowance
forecast capacities (Aggregate measure)
Optimization
Algorithm
Optimal Attendance Zones
32

33. The optimization process
examines multiple school
site/assignment schemes
and continually re-calculates
the constraint variables for
each school in the impacted
area...

34. Ultimately determining the
optimal school site/assignment
that will:
1. Minimize transportation costs
and
2. Satisfy the constraints
within the impact area.
Optimal scenarios can be then
fine-tuned by staff to address
transportation and other issues.

35. Located southeast of Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, Johnston
County NC has experienced tremendous growth over the last
two decades. As an OREd client since 1990, Johnston County
Schools have used the data-driven planning tools in IPSAC to
locate new school sites and draw attendance zones to
accommodate and increasing student population.
In 2010, JCS opened two new high schools – the culmination of
years of careful planning and hard work.
35

38. Utilization/Capacity
Demographic
Proximity
Balance
Feeder Pattern
38

39. Proximity + Capacity Scenario
(example)
Impact Area
ES-Level
Proficiency index
min: 35%
max: 78%

40. Proximity + Capacity + Proficiency Scenario
(example)
Impact Area
ES-Level
Proficiency index
min: 53%
max: 70%

41. Utilization/Capacity
Demographic
Proximity
Balance
Feeder Pattern
41

42.  Data
 Consensus on Membership Forecast
 School Building Capacities – Current status
 Optimization
 Holistic - Considers entire system
 Always minimizes student travel distance, given
policy-driven conditions on:
▪ Utilization
▪ Feeder patterns
▪ Balance
42

43. Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools

44.  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.

45. February
13 – (4:00-5:30)*
March
26 (6:00)
April
30 (6:00)
May
29 (6:00)
June
25 (4:00–5:30)*
August/ Sept
TBD

46. QUESTIONS