Here's a quick rundown of the facilities committee meeting.
Enrollment projections have been scaled back again. For budget purposes, the preliminary figures have Wake at 164,480 students in 2015. For construction planning purposes, the projection is 176,489 students in 2015.
For the 2006 bond issue, enrollment had been projected to reach more than 190,000 students by 2015.
From the facilities utilization report, Wake is at 91.7 percent of campus capacity this year. It's at 89.8 percent in elementary schools, 94.5 percent in middle schools and 92.9 percent in high schools.
School staff and board members said that changing stream now would be a problem because the seven additional new schools that will open by 2013 aren't enough to keep up with this even reduced growth. It's a not too veiled hint to the new board members who say they want neighborhood schools and an end to mandatory year-round schools.
UPDATE
Click here for the latest enrollment projection. I will put the caveat that the county says they're still preiiminary even though Dulaney says they won't change.
For a comparison, click here to see the previous year's long-term projections. Click here for the projections from the 2006 bond issue.
Click here for an abbreviated version of the 2009 facilities utilization report. It includes school-by-school and districtwide data.
Click here for the online article from the committee meeting.
Comments
Same old garbage
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 17:15 — stacy123This is the same as we saw previously. How is it that several schools can be so much over capacity - with trailers! and others have no trailers? and are under capacity? Does not even state what the definition of optimum capacity is. On and on it goes. Who is educating the WCPSS?
I noticed that Davis Drive
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 17:22 — user12345I noticed that Davis Drive just converted their spare trailers to a fitness center. Obviously we have room to spare.
http://www.carynews.com/schools/story/14241.html
now it's obvious how G&P
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 16:57 — AngelaWnow it's obvious how G&P packed in LES with applications to justify MYR( ---if you take that number out, you (almost ) get the LRSCC), putting crowding @ 118.2% while Sycamore Creek sits down the street @ 66%.
They Really Don't Know What Is Going On?
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 16:37 — JanisTangoI'm looking at this report and their 2009-2010 report says 11.8% of the kids at my children's ES are in trailers! I know this is NOT TRUE at all. I've been to all the trailers recently and they are not housing students. We also have empty classrooms in our school. They need to get their act together. If our school's statistics are wrong, how many others could be wrong!
The Percentage
Wed, 11/11/2009 - 01:06 — TrailerParkGirlThe Percentage in mobile units represents the % of Annual School Campus Capacity that is from mobile unit capacity. It's a calculation of available capacity rather than used capacity. You can recalculate it by taking the SBC + Special Needs Program Adjustment + (number of mobile units * what I'm guessing they refer to as student factor i.e. students per unit) = ASCC. Take the result of mobile units*student factor and divide by the ASCC. ES student factor is 23, so if an ES has 3 units that would be 69/ASCC gives the percentage in mobile units. However, if the school is undercapacity, mobile units and/or brick and mortar rooms will indeed be empty and utilization by school is all over the place. The issue is why are some schools operating well under capacity while others are over. One of the challenges the new BOE will face is given the lumpy capacity how to balance utilization considerations with the other things they want to accomplish. It's going to take some serious number crunching and the reliability of the number crunching from the system to date doesn't give a lot of people warm fuzzies.
I think we should continue
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 12:20 — RevHiDI think we should continue to build the planned number of schools, but reverse YR conversions or open new schools on traditional calendar to deal with slower growth due to the economy. (If people were going to be fired for not predicting the great recession... we'd have a much higher unemployment rate.) This gives us an opportunity to invest in building when materials and labor costs are down. It keeps people working, builds schools cheaper, and puts more people on the traditional calendar. Thats a win on all sides.
"Enrollment projections have been scaled back again"
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 13:12 — g88ky07That just says it all doesn't it!
The only thing I want to hear from the quitters in their last few days is the door hitting them squarely on their A$$es on their way out!
Yes, we should reverse MYR's immediately. I don't see a reason for new schools to open on year round schedules, unless they want to make them voluntary YR. After tackling all this then you can more practically look at the building aspect and this would probably help the neighborhood school concept become realized more clearly.
But then, what do I know. ;c )
Actually your best post!
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 12:39 — stacy123OK I need to say this was actualy a reasonable idea and has merits about building the schools now. First time I can say that you had a reasonable post. I would like to see the new board look at the total cosntruction plans and growth projections as I do not trust anything the current board and not sure about the growth dept. Not sure if they are building the right schools in the right areas where growth is occurring/expected. But to your comment about forecasting these #'s vs. the recession - this forecasting population is more based on hard data and much less guesswork than the economy as much more of the factors are variable -so it is not really comparable.
Nice to see
Wed, 11/11/2009 - 01:25 — TrailerParkGirlNice to see another finance number cruncher type. I would guess the new BOE will be looking at the plans and projections. I believe what the current board used came from the growth department. Historically, they have not built all schools where growth was occurring/expected; some have been built in areas considered bussable, which have come to be referred to as the "bussable Rim." It would be interesting to see a county map with each school location donated with its crowding %.
Staff has no credibility
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 12:11 — CaryCurmudgeonStaff has no credibility regarding student growth projections. Actual growth in the student population since the 2006 bond was passed has been just above 50% of what they projected. This is consistent with their annual figures which have been off by 50% or more.
Someone told me that Johnson County has outsourced their growth projections to a third party. Not sure whether that costs more that what WCPSS does, but I was told that Johnson County's enrollment projections are usually within a couple percent of dead on.
I hope this part of administration''s function gets revamped -- quickly. There is too much money at stake to make these kinds of mistakes.
Doesn't Wake County
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 12:16 — shank56Doesn't Wake County government do the forecasting in conjunction with the school system?
The projections are done
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 12:41 — KeungHui (author)The projections are done jointly by county and school staff.
Wake County Parents and Citizens Voted
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:35 — ncmpgjrDid staff not get the memo?
1 more thing!
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:31 — stacy123I wodner if all the schools are actually in the cities and towns where the gorwth is - with projections this bad I wonder if they also got worng from a neighborhood/geographical pesepctive as well - usually the projections get worse as you go into finer and finer levels of details. Keung have you any details on the growth projections by city, town or perhaps district as well as capacity of the schools (both planned and projected) within the same area? would be interesting to see (as well as enrollment data to keep them honest!) Actually we would need node info. as well due to re-assignment out of the neighborhood schools - this would be great data I am sure WSCA and the new board members are looking at this data.
I don't have the data at
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 12:08 — KeungHui (author)I don't have the data at the town and node level.
Anyone else would have been fired for these projections
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:26 — stacy123Gee I work in finance and this is the worse projections forecasting I have seen - especially with a good % of this growth coming from publically available birth rates in wake (plus transfers into the county) let's see 26k/190k 13% lower. Gee, they are saying we still need the same # of all the schools in the queue and the same # of mandatory year round!! Guess the voters must have figured out the math and voted accordingly!
" this is the worse
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 13:00 — user12345" this is the worse projections forecasting I have seen "
I think you are neglecting the affect of the financial meltdown. Look at previous years when growth was strong and see what you would expect back in 2006. Check your forecasting skills using say 2003-2006. I think you will find 190k is right on. Also, remember there are another 15% of kids in private, charter, or home school that can pick the “public option” at anytime so running with zero slack is risky.
1995 81
1996 85
1997 89
1998 91
1999 94
2000 97
2001 101
2002 106
2003 114
2004 120
2005 128
2006 134
2015 190??
I stand by my statement
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 14:01 — stacy123forecasting #'s based on a simple trend is a good reasonableness test but forecasting involves using current relevant data not just a simple tend like you ahve shown - although you are right they probably just did what you have done and came up with it that way. Insteasd of looking at birth rates etc. Also, the comments about prviate shcools etc. those numbers can also be forecasted and should be included in the projections.
Are you in this profession? I think most wake county parents and voters agree on this: that the projections and #'s provided in by WCPSS in EOG tests, comparisons vs. CMS, re-assignments, growth forecasting and projections, are very inaccurate and could be done much better.
Ditto
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 16:49 — user12345Again, the straight line worked for 10-20 years and without a meltdown would probably still be close. I think most people missed forecasting the meltdown except for Goldman who helped create it.
Many years ago, I remember an article in the N&O that mentioned how Johnson Co. employed a company that used all the available data, talked to developers and actually went door to door asking people how many kid they had and their ages and they were within maybe 100 kids of their estimate on the 20th day compared to Wake who depended on in-house staff and were much less accurate. I think you are right in that there is probably a "bubble" down in the ES level who if they reach HS will bust the seams. Also, any effort to increase the graduation rate will increase the retention rate and increase crowding. Very dynamic. Probably like trying to guess how many products to stock to meet seasonal demand.