rac presentation - slcs.us · 6/6/2016 · 6/6/2016 1 south lyon community schools draft...

6/6/2016

1

South Lyon Community Schools

Draft Presentation

2017‐18 Elementary and Middle School Boundary Redistricting Plan

Presented June 6, 2016

1

Presentation Outline

• Why are we Here

• Committee Charge from Board of Education

• Timeline

• Task Force

• Guiding Principles

• Elementary Redistricting Plan

• Middle School Redistricting Plan

2

6/6/2016

2

Why Are We Here

• We are adding an 8th Elementary School that was approved by the voters in May of 2015, and will open in the fall of 2017

• Unprecedented student growth

• Lack of available classroom space

3

Board of Education Redistricting Guidelines

• Administration to develop a multi‐year plan to populate William A. Pearson Elementary School and review/recommend changes to K‐8 school boundaries

• Present one option to Board of Education

• Have three Board Members attend periodic administrative meetings

4

6/6/2016

3

Things to Keep in Mind• This Plan will not be exact

• Predicting enrollment is a very difficult endeavor, especially when predicting new developments

• Hopefully the tools that we have to deal with growth beyond our estimates (i.e., Enhanced Capacity) will be sufficient

• If we continue to grow, a new elementary school is inevitable• If we did do a larger redistricting now, the potential is much higher that some students would be redistricted again with a new school

• We are trying to avoid it, but….• There simply is no way to guarantee this plan will last until a new school is in place 5

TimelineDate Description

Oct 12, 2015 Board established Redistricting charge to Administration

Oct 12, 2015 Board established Task Force Charge for 2016‐17 overcrowding

Dec 2015 –Jan 2016

Task Force met three times to develop plan to deal with 2016‐17 overcrowding, and compiled data to be used for redistricting plan

Feb 1, 8, 2016 Task Force plan presented and adopted by Board of Education

Mar 1, 2016 –Apr 22, 2016

Redistricting Administrative Committee (RAC) begins meeting about every two weeks

Apr 25, 2016May 5, 2016

Preliminary recommendations made to Redistricting ExecutiveCommittee Meeting

May 6, 2016June 2, 2016

RAC preparation of preliminary report and presentation forthe June 6, 2016 Community Forum

6

6/6/2016

4

TimelineDate Description

July, Aug 2016RAC to meet with community members to hear feedback of plan and/or receive alternate recommendations

Aug 2016 RAC to update development projections from developers

Sept 2016RAC to refine plan based on actual enrollment data and/or input from community

Late Sept 2016

RAC to present final recommended K‐8 Boundary Redistricting Plan at Community Forum

Oct 3, 2016RAC to present final recommended K‐8 Boundary Redistricting Plan at Board Meeting for information

Oct 17, 2016RAC to present final recommended K‐8 Boundary Redistricting Plan at Board Meeting for approval

7

Redistricting Administrative Committee Members

Name Title

Maureen Altermatt Asst. Supt. Administrative Services

Melissa Baker Superintendent

Dianne Beagle Pupil Services Data Processor

Chena Burton Mgr. of Transportation

Mike Casey Former Director of Operations

Jim Graham Asst. Supt. For Business/Finance

Lisa Kudwa Asst. Supt. For CITA

Mariann Martin Mgr. of Pupil Services

Jeff Russell Mgr. of Technology Services

Karen Wiater Bookkeeper

8

6/6/2016

5

Redistricting Executive Committee Members

Name Title

Steve Brummer Board Member Representative

Amy McCusker Board Member Representative

Michele Lurz Board Member Representative

All Members of RAC Various

9

Task ForceCharge From Board of Education

• Charge was to develop a plan to address how best to accommodate the anticipated elementary enrollment increase for 2016‐17, taking into account various options based on student impact, class size, cost and operating efficiency.

• The task force will also review middle school enrollment trends to determine if middle school boundary changes may be needed beginning in 2016‐17.

10

6/6/2016

6

Task ForceTimeline / Details

• After data was gathered this past fall, the Task Force had three public meetings this past December and January

• The data used regarding enrollment projections was not only used for the Task Force recommendations, but is also being used as the starting point for the Redistricting work.

11

Task ForceApproved Elementary Recommendations

• Add Art on a Cart for Kent Lake and Sayre and continue at Dolsen Elementary

• Add separating wall to media center at Brummer, Hardy and Kent Lake to allow for the temporary addition of two classrooms in each of these media centers

• Purchase two sets of two classroom portable units for Dolsen Elementary

• Move GSRP to ECC from Bartlett, Salem and Sayre

• Some internal classroom shifting in Bartlett and Salem

12

6/6/2016

7

Task ForceApproved Middle School Recommendations

• All future schools of choice students will go to Millennium MS, beginning this fall

• Convert two sign up labs at Centennial MS into classrooms

• Wait on any redistricting until 2017‐18

13

Task ForceSummary

• Task Force accomplished goal to address projected 2016‐17 elementary and middle school overcrowding

• The Task Force is no longer an active committee, but much of the information is being used by the Redistricting Administrative Committee (RAC)

14

6/6/2016

8

2017 Redistricting Plan

15

Guiding Principles

16

6/6/2016

9

2013 RedistrictingGuiding Principles

• Defined overcrowding as to no doubling up on elementary specials

• District programs that are non‐building specific may be moved

• Do not split neighborhoods, do not create islands

• Grandfather only 5th graders if the elementary boundary is revised (policy 5120)

• Guidance for schools of choice remains the same

• Maintain socio‐economic equity as much as possible

• Provide options to cover future boundary changes for 4‐5 years

17

2017 RAC Guidelines

• Unlike in 2013, the Board of Education expressly did not provide any guiding principles for the RAC plan, just wanted the best plan for kids

• The RAC determined that the recommended plan would move the least amount of children, while attempting to keep in mind the previous guiding principles regarding islands, splitting neighborhoods, and socio‐economic equity

• The RAC will be recommending the continued suspension of 105 and 105c (out of district school of choice), with no changes to intra‐district schools of choice, and the continued grandfathering of 5th

graders for revised boundaries 18

6/6/2016

10

2017 RAC Guidelines

• In terms of future boundary changes, the RAC wanted to develop a plan that would last until another elementary school and middle school are required (subject to voter approval)

• Try to avoid moving a subdivision or area that might end up being moved again in as little as two years IF a new elementary school was needed and approved by the voters (location unknown at this point)

• Thanks to the work of the Task Force, the District has options at its disposal to allow for schools to exceed 100% of their optimal capacity, through the use of art on a cart, splitting certain media centers, and portable classrooms 19

Elementary SchoolsRedistricting Plan

20

6/6/2016

11

Step One:

Determine At What Point an Additional Elementary School

May Be Needed

21

Annual Total Elementary Enrollment

• Start with total elementary enrollment

• Less Magnet Students and self contained special education students

• Determine total elementary classrooms

• Less Magnet classrooms and self contained special education classrooms and most resource rooms

• Update total elementary enrollment each year taking into consideration grade progression, and additional students associated with new developments and changes in existing housing

22

6/6/2016

12

Annual Total Elementary Capacity

• Determine a targeting average class size K‐5

• Initially a target of 26 students per class average was used

• This has been reduced to an average of 25 students per class

• Determine total capacity

• With an average class size of 25, deducting the Magnet students and self‐contained special education classrooms, calculate the total K‐5 student capacity

23

Annual Total Elementary Enrollment vs. Capacity

2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20

Estimated Enrollment 3,794 4,043 4,326 4,526 4,747

Elementary Capacity 3,850 3,850 4,450 4,450 4,450

Available Capacity 56 (193) 124 (76) (297)

Does not include CI or Magnet, Pearson Elementary added in 2017‐18 capacity numbers 24

6/6/2016

13

Based on the projection, an additional elementary school will

be needed as early as 2019‐2020, depending on actual growth and/or whether

temporary classroom spaces are utilized again (media center

walls, portables, etc.)25

Step Two:

Determine which elementary schools will be overcrowded in 2018‐19 and which schools will

have excess capacity

26

6/6/2016

14

Annual Total Elementary Enrollment vs. Optimal Capacity

Before Proposed Redistricting

2018‐19Enrollment Capacity

% of Capacity

Bartlett Elementary 481 475 101%

Brummer Elementary 555 550 101%

Dolsen Elementary 772 500 154%

Hardy Elementary 683 600 114%

Kent Lake Elementary 800 600 133%

Pearson Elementary 0 600 0%

Salem Elementary 542 500 108%

Sayre Elementary 692 625 110%

27

Step Three:

Determine a logical boundary for Pearson Elementary with a targeted 2018‐19 student

population not to exceed 100% of capacity and also free up

space from our most overcrowded schools (Dolsen,

Hardy and Kent Lake) 28

6/6/2016

15

Pearson Boundary

29

Pearson ElementaryMajor Subdivisions

SubdivisionPrevious School

Boundary

Elkow Farms Dolsen

Carriage Club Hardy

Hornbrook Dolsen

Crystal Creek Dolsen

The Ponds Kent Lake

Mill River Kent Lake

Carriage Trace Kent Lake

30

6/6/2016

16

Step Four:

Determine logical boundary changes for the remaining

schools that would impact the least amount of students,

knowing that some schools will likely be above optimal

capacity31

Bartlett ElementaryMajor Subdivision Changes

New SubdivisionsPrevious School

Boundary

None

Leaving SubdivisionsNew SchoolBoundary

None

No Changes to Bartlett Boundary

32

6/6/2016

17

Brummer ElementaryMajor Subdivision Changes


Boundary

Shadowood Farms Salem


None

33

Brummer Current Boundary

34

6/6/2016

18

Brummer Proposed Boundary

Dolsen ElementaryMajor Subdivision Changes


Boundary

Downtown New Hudson

Kent Lake


Elkow Farms Pearson

Orchards of Lyon I Kent Lake

Hornbrook Pearson

Crystal Creek Pearson

36

6/6/2016

19

Dolsen Current Boundary

37

Dolsen Proposed Boundary

6/6/2016

20

Hardy ElementaryMajor Subdivision Changes


Boundary

None


Carriage Club Pearson

39

Hardy Current Boundary

40

6/6/2016

21

Hardy Proposed Boundary

Kent Lake ElementaryMajor Subdivision Changes


Boundary

Orchards of Lyon I Dolsen


The Ponds Pearson

Mill River Pearson

Carriage Trace Pearson

Downtwn New Hud Dolsen

42

6/6/2016

22

Kent Lake Current Boundary

43

Kent Lake Proposed Boundary

6/6/2016

23

Salem ElementaryMajor Subdivision Changes


Boundary

None


Shadowood Farms Brummer

45

Salem Current Boundary

46

6/6/2016

24

Salem Proposed Boundary

Sayre ElementaryMajor Subdivision Changes


Boundary

None


None

No Changes to the Sayre Boundary

48

6/6/2016

25


After Proposed Redistricting


% of Capacity









49

Step Five:

Determine “Enhanced” building capacity and compare to the estimated enrollments for

2018‐19

Enhanced capacity will likely be needed prior to a 9th

Elementary school50

6/6/2016

26

Enhanced Capacity

• The Enhanced Capacity at each elementary school is defined as the Optimal Capacity plus the following:

• Art on a Cart (One classroom per building)

• Media Center as two classrooms (available for Brummer, Kent Lake, Hardy and Pearson)

• Portable Classrooms (Two sets of two classrooms)

• Other less desirable options such as Music on a Cart are possible but not included

51

Annual Total Elementary Enrollment vs. Enhanced Capacity



% of Capacity









Art on a cart for all, Media Center classrooms for Brummer, Kent Lake, Hardy, Pearson, 2 Portable classrooms to Sayre, (2 still in reserve)

52

6/6/2016

27

2018‐19 Bottom Line

Assuming these projections are accurate, and some of the enhanced classrooms are implemented, we should have adequate space in all elementary schools for 2018‐19

53

Step Six:

Let’s take a peek at the 2019‐20 situation, assuming there is not a 9th elementary

school added prior to 2020‐21

54

6/6/2016

28

Given the projections, enhancements would be necessary, but would it be

enough?

55

Annual Total Elementary Enrollment vs. Enhanced Capacity



% of Capacity









Art on a cart for all, Media Center classrooms for Brummer, Kent Lake, Hardy, Pearson, 4 Portable classrooms to Sayre, (2 additional from 2018‐19) 56

6/6/2016

29

Step Seven:

Let’s examine how well we met the 2017 RAC guidelines

57

Limit Amount of Kids With Boundary Changes

58

6/6/2016

30

Proposed RedistrictingImpact to Kids

• Besides the children going to Pearson Elementary, only 76 children are expected to go to a different school than the one they are going to now, and some of these will be 5th

graders eligible for the grandfathering option

• This represents about 2% of the non‐Pearson students

• Other options that were considered would greatly increase the amount of children impacted

59

Don’t Create Islands or Split Neighborhoods

60

6/6/2016

31

Proposed RedistrictingNo Islands, No splitting of Subdivisions

• The proposal does not create islands, nor does it split subdivisions

• It actually corrects one current split subdivision (Orchards of Lyon phase I and II)

61

Examine Socio‐Economic Impact

62

6/6/2016

32

Free/Reduced % By SchoolCurrent vs. After Proposed Redistricting

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Bartlett Brummer Dolsen Hardy Kent Lake Pearson Salem Sayre

Current Projected63

Proposed RedistrictingSocio‐Economic Impact

• Generally, the expected socio‐economic picture at each existing elementary school is within +/‐ 4% of the current percentage

• In order for Pearson to fall within the range of the other schools, it would have required a substantial redistricting (beyond what is proposed) and possibly required the creation of islands

64

6/6/2016

33

Other Considerations• Defined overcrowding as to no doubling up on elementary

specials• Due to the expected student population, and in order to try and

meet the goal of no additional redistricting prior to a new elementary school, some doubling may be necessary

• District programs that are non‐building specific may be moved

• This is still the case with the proposed redistricting plan

• Grandfather only 5th graders if the elementary boundary is revised• This is Board Policy and can be accommodated with this plan

• Guidance for schools of choice remains the same• We recommend the current intra‐district schools of choice remains

the same, and recommend the continuation of non‐participation in out of district 105 and 105C schools of choice 65

Step Eight:

Update enrollment trends this summer, update the developer forecasts, and receive input

from the community

Amend redistricting plan, if necessary

66

6/6/2016

34

Step Nine:

Provide final recommendation to the Board of Education in

October of 2016

67

Middle SchoolRedistricting Plan

68

6/6/2016

35

Step One:

Determine at What Point an Additional Middle School may

be Needed

69

Annual Total Middle School Enrollment

• Start with total middle school enrollment

• Less self contained special education students

• Determine total middle school classrooms

• Less self contained special education classrooms and resource rooms

• Update total middle school enrollment each year taking into consideration grade progression from each elementary school, and additional students associated with new developments and changes in existing housing

70

6/6/2016

36

Annual Total Middle School Capacity

• Determine a targeting average class size

• Initially a target of 28 students per class average was used

• This is still a good target for purposes of redistricting

• Determine total capacity

• With an average class size of 28, deducting the self‐contained special education classrooms, calculate the total middle school student capacity

71

Annual Total Middle School Enrollment vs. Capacity

2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22

EstimatedEnrollment

1,895 2,032 2,127 2,243 2,239 2,414 2,538

Middle SchoolCapacity

2,408 2,408 2,408 2,408 2,408 2,408 2,408

Available Capacity 513 376 281 165 169 (6) (130)

* Does not include CI 72

6/6/2016

37

Based on the projection, an additional middle school could be needed as early as 2021‐2022, depending on actual

growth

73

Step Two:

Determine how many students need to be moved from

Centennial Middle School to Millennium Middle School based

on optimal capacity

74

6/6/2016

38


Before Proposed Redistricting


% of Capacity

Centennial MS 1,280 1,064 120%

Millennium MS 1,134 1,344 84%

75

Step Three:

Determine a logical boundary for both middle schools

76

6/6/2016

39

Millennium Major SubdivisionsMoved from CMS Boundary

Subdivision

Lyon Ridge

Copperwood

Tanglewood

Hidden Timbers

Woodwind Village / Glens

Walnut Creek

Carriage Club

77

CMS

MMS

Middle Schools Current

Boundaries

78

6/6/2016

40

Middle Schools Proposed Boundaries

Annual Total Middle School Enrollment vs. Optimal Capacity



% of Capacity



80

6/6/2016

41

Step Four:

Determine “Enhanced” building capacity and compare to estimated enrollments for

2020‐21

81

Enhanced Capacity

• The Enhanced Capacity at each middle school is defined as the Optimal Capacity plus the following:

• Convert one more computer lab at CMS into a general ed classroom (replace with mobile chromebook carts)

• Convert four labs at MMS into general edclassrooms (replace with mobile chromebook carts)

• Portable Classrooms (Two sets of two classrooms)

82

6/6/2016

42

Annual Total Middle SchoolEnrollment vs. Enhanced Capacity



% of Capacity



Computer labs converted to classrooms (4 MMS, 1 CMS) and portables to CMS (assuming won’t be needed at elementary level)

83

2020‐21 Bottom Line

Assuming the projections are accurate, and some of the enhanced classrooms are implemented, we should have

adequate space in the middle schools through the 2020‐21 school year

84

6/6/2016

43

Step Five:

Let’s take a peek at the 2021‐22 situation assuming

there will not be a 3rd

middle school prior to 2022‐23

85

Given the projections, enhancements would be necessary, but would it be

enough?

86

6/6/2016

44

Annual Total Middle SchoolEnrollment vs. Enhanced Capacity



% of Capacity



Computer labs converted to classrooms (4 MMS, 1 CMS) and portables could be available (assuming won’t be needed at elementary level), which would add 56 capacity for each set (112 total) 87

Step Six:

Let’s examine how well we met the 2017 RAC guidelines

88

6/6/2016

45

Limit Amount of Kids With Boundary Changes

89

Proposed RedistrictingImpact to Kids

• Middle school redistricting is easier than elementary redistricting simply because you are shifting between only two schools

• The forecast requires at least 216 students be moved from Centennial MS to Millennium MS by 2020‐21, the proposed redistricting plan would move 275 students

• Most of the projected growth is within the CMS boundary and this proposal allows for some additional CMS growth

90

6/6/2016

46

Don’t Create Islands or Split Neighborhoods

91

Proposed RedistrictingNo Islands, No splitting of Subdivisions

• The proposal does not create islands, nor does it split subdivisions

92

6/6/2016

47

Examine Socio‐Economic Impact

93

Free/Reduced % By SchoolCurrent

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

CMS MMS

94

6/6/2016

48

Proposed RedistrictingSocio‐Economic Impact

• We are in the process of updating the free/reduced numbers to reflect the proposed redistricting, but we don’t expect any significant change in the percentages

95

Step Seven:

Update enrollment trends this summer, update the developer forecasts, and receive input

from the community

Amend redistricting plan, if necessary

96

6/6/2016

49

Step Eight:

Provide final recommendation to the Board of Education in

October of 2016

97

Things to Keep in Mind

• It Takes Time to Develop a Plan, Have Voter Approval, and Design and Build Schools• Elementary Schools (3 ½ years)

• Developing a plan (12 months)

• Voter approval (3 months)

• Design time / Bidding (11 months)

• Construction Time (17 months)

• Middle Schools (4 years)• Developing a plan (12 months)

• Voter approval (3 months)

• Design time / Bidding (13 months)

• Construction Time (20 months)

98

6/6/2016

50

Example of a Projected ScheduleIf There was New Elementary in the Fall 2020

Date Task

May 2017 –Jan 2018

Plan Development

Feb 2018 –May 2018

Ballot Language, Bond Communication

May 2018 Voter Approval

May 2018 –Dec 2018

Building Design

Dec 2018 –Mar 2019

Project Bidding

Apr 2019 ‐Aug 2020

Building and Site Construction

Aug 2020 Building Completed

99

Search Our Interactive Boundary Proposal From A Smartphone or Computer

https://goo.gl/JVxXDO(Case-sensitive)

6/6/2016

51

Questions?

101

rac presentation - slcs.us · 6/6/2016 · 6/6/2016 1 south lyon community schools draft...

Documents