School board expands size of 2011-12 reassignment plan

So I finally found a copy of the capacity handout that Evans presented and the media has referenced.  WEP has a copy on their website:  www.wakeedpartnership.org/news/d/capacitysummary.pdf

There are some issues with this report, or at least how it's being talked about.  First, the Leesville MS capacity prediction of 191.1% is based on the Long Range School Campus Capacity.  The Annual School Campus Capacity prediction for 2013-14 is 125.7%.  Still overcrowded, but that is a lot different from 191%.  BTW, Leesville MS's current LRSCC is 168% and its ASCC is 110%.

The LRSCC is calculated by determining the optimum number of temporary classrooms.  ASCC is calculated using the actual number of temp classrooms that are on a campus.   From the 2010-11 Facility Utlization Report:

Optimum Number of Instructional Temporary Units has been defined as the
number of units that meet the following criteria:
• can be physically accommodated on the site;
• are permissible by the authorities having jurisdiction and by zoning, etc.;
• can be supported by no more than one toilet trailer unit;
• can be supported by dining room facilities with no more than 3 seatings based on
Department of Public Instruction Guidelines;
• can be accommodated within 300 feet of the closest building access point; and,
• can be supported by specialized educational program spaces like Career Technical
Education, science, gym, etc.
• can be supported by vehicle traffic patterns.

I bolded the criteria that appear later in that Facilities Util Rpt as ones that limit the number of trailers.  They have a chart listing schools and they have an X on the criteria which limit the number at each school.  So it appears that the first 4 criteria in the list are ones that have code or other physical restrictions placed on them.  The others on that list seem more subjective.
 

Looking at the chart, the only criteria they have checked as limiting trailers at LRMS is the dining requirement.  That same chart lists 0 as the optimum number of temp classrooms and the actual number as 16.  Seeing this, it seems as if the dining guideline isn't a requirement from DPI.   These trailers didn't just suddenly appear.  There were 10 back in 2003-04 (earliest I could find on the website) and it looks like it was raised to 16 in 05-06. 

I have some questions that maybe somebody here can answer.  First, when was the last time we were actually at the Optimum Number of Temp classrooms?  Has there been any urgency in getting us back to that number for not just Leesville MS but all schools that have more than the optimum? 

They have Joyner Elem's projected 2013-14 long range capacity as 168.5% and the annual capacity as 125.5%.  Joyner's current LRSCC is 141.7% and its ASCC is 105.5%  Joyner's optimum number of temp classrooms is 1. In 06-07, Joyner had 0 trailers and had an ASCC of 122%.  They moved the low income kids from Washington Terrace to Leesville Elem in 07-08 to relieve the crowding.  Later that  same year (07-08), they brought in 8 trailers (even though the optimum is 1) and made Joyner the MYR opt out for several schools.  If they are worried about exceeding the long range capacity, why on earth did they add new trailers in the first place?  Especially since they had just reassigned a bunch of kids to relieve crowding?

Then there are schools that have 0 trailers but an optimum number of them listed and that optimum number is used in the LRSCC & ASCC figures.  Some of these schools appear on the list of schools that are under 75%.  For instance, Bugg's optimum number of trailers is listed as 8 but they don't have any.  Their predicted ASCC is 83% and their predicted LRSCC is 63%.  So we are saying that they could have 8 trailers so they aren't fully utilizing their capacity and are on the underenrolled list.  (Even at 83% they are underenrolled, but I hope you see my point).

On a sidenote, my personal favorite is Wakefield Elem which is on the underenrolled watchlist for 2013-14.  LRSCC is 70% and ASCC is 67%.  So much for needing to keep Wakefield year round to handle all of the incoming growth.  This school has been chronically underenrolled since it converted to MYR and it appears that it won't be getting any better. 

Now that I've written this really long and confusing post, the point of it all is that people are reacting to these really high crowding numbers like LRMS's 191% but there is more to it than that.  You really have to look at the reports to get a better understanding and even then you can't understand it all.  Not denying that we have some over and under crowding issues.  Just that it's not so simple.

This is one of the most helpful posts of the past 24 months. Certainly the best of the new year. And a model of what I like most about this blog: Empowered, data-driven, thoughtful posts that respect school staff and seek the best situation for our kids.

I especially like your conclusions.