BREAK THE WHEEL
Recent Posts

Analyzing the new CFHS redistricting data - Projection Forecast Spreadsheets (Part 2: Options 4-7)

February 25, 2017

This post is part 2, to see the analysis of the first 3 options in part 1, click the link HERE.   BTW is using the new "Projection Forecast" spreadsheets released by SCPS on Friday to analyze the options.  These spreadsheets show very clearly how the students will slowly shift from attendance at Forge to one of the other three targeted high schools over the course of the next 4 years through the school year 2020-21.   We have explained how to read the spreadsheet in a previous post, for clarification please click the link HERE.

 

The SB will utilize this data to help them determine which option they should choose. We can use it for these purposes, too. In this post, we will only analyze how these options affect Forge, we will not look at how capacity is affected at the receiving schools. To help make sense of the data, BTW has used another document produced by SCPS to find capacity percentages for each school year between now and school year 20-21. This document, the "Out of Capacity Table" can be found at SCPS' website by clicking HERE.  Let's continue now with with Option 4....

 

This option is exactly the same as Option 3, only with APU 166 Autumn Ridge removed. During the work session, this option was proposed after the protest of SB Garrisonville Rep Connelly objected to moving the "established community" of Autumn Ridge.  It should be noted, there is an error at the bottom of the 17-18yr. 9th grade number.  The total is 77, not 112.  Let's look at the capacity numbers: 17-18 97.8%, 18-19 95.9%, 19-20 91.7% and 20-21 91.9%.  

 

This option doesn't do nearly the job of reducing Forge's population as the previous option, which makes sense considering the only difference is that Autumn Ridge doesn't move out of Forge.  The number of students moved is much closer to the 400 student target set by the SB, moves enough real students to ease attendance numbers at Forge but also moves the "future students" of EMBNorth.  BTW thinks that this option has a real chance of being chosen.  


 

Here's a fun fact that somehow no one has noticed, including me.  To be fair to me, this is not my job, no one is paying me to do this, I am a weird individual who is crunching these numbers for fun on a weekend.   Even still, I feel very dumb to not have noticed before that OPTION 2 IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS OPTION 5!!!  There will be a post on just this issue but for now, we can just cut and paste the Option 2 analysis.

 

Option 2 (5) is like the antithesis of the previous option (Option 1.) This is a very conservative approach, moving only relatively small neighborhoods to MVHS, most of which are geographically close to MV and moving Embrey Mill North to NSHS. The SB won't get many complaints from the Embrey Mill residents who don't live here yet, which is likely why EMN is slated to move to NSHS in all remaining options. You also don't have any big, established neighborhoods moving in this option, which the SB will no doubt appreciate at the public hearing.

 

It should be noted, there is an error at the bottom of the 17-18yr. 9th grade number. The total is 62, not 112. The number of students moving out of Forge next year, 62, will relieve some of the over-crowding Forge is experiencing but not much. Looking at the capacity numbers, next year Forge will be at 98.5%, 97.6% in 18-19, 94% in 19-20 and finally 94.7% in 20-21. There is a worrying uptick in that last number, which could point to yet another need for redistricting in the future. By adopting this option (2 or 5), Forge won't likely feel marked relief until school year 19-20.

 

Option 6 goes back to the idea of moving APU 164 Augustine North to MVHS while also moving our future, EMNorth students.  The end result is almost 500 students moved but since 215 of those kids are future kids, the SB may actually be ok with that.  It should be noted, there is an error at the bottom of the 17-18yr. 9th grade number. The total is 103, not 112.  Let's look at the capacity numbers:  17-18 96.6%, 18-19 94.6%, 19-20 89.8%, 20-21 88.8%.

 

This option gives Forge both immediate and future relief from it's capacity woes.  The question here is will a huge neighborhood like Augustine North go quietly and take the hit for everyone else?  BTW doesn't think this will go down very well with the very large, affluent neighborhood.  One also wonders if Patricia Healy, the Rockhill School Board Rep. will be at all worried about her future on the board if this gets passed.  Augustine North votes and will not likely have short memories when Ms. Healy is up for re-election in a couple years.  

 

Here we have arrived at the SB's final option.  This option completely passes the buck to our incoming neighbors at Embrey Mill, both North and South.  It should be noted, there is an error at the bottom of the 17-18yr. 9th grade number. The total is 70, not 112.  Capacity numbers are: 98%, 96.8%, 92.5% and 92.5%.

 

This option doesn't do much to alleviate the over-crowding at Forge now because it relies so heavily on future students heading to North.  However, since the residents don't live here yet, they are unlikely to complain at the public hearing.  

 

It is important to remember when looking at any of these options that 1) the SB is relying on their projections to be spot on.  If they are higher than projected, Forge will continue to have problems regardless of what option they choose 2) the SB has indicated a willingness to reassess it's sibling policy.  This means that younger siblings of current Forge students, including incoming freshmen, could go to Forge over the next few years. If this happens, their projections will be blown out of the water.  3) Travel students (kids who change schools during the day to attend certain classes or signature programs) are not reflected anywhere in these projections.  How these students affect attendance is not known by BTW.

 

 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Round 1: Cardinal Meadows development and Cluster Ordinance status quo heard by Planning Commission..get a big no thanks

March 1, 2018

1/10
Please reload

Featured Posts