The document summarizes the minutes from a meeting of the Student Reassignment Committee. Key details include: - The committee reviewed out of capacity data and scenario data provided by the Operations Research and Education Laboratory (ORED) regarding potential student reassignments. - ORED presented preliminary optimization scenarios focusing on proximity and utilization. Data on student counts, utilization rates, and demographic balances at each school level were shown. - The committee will continue reviewing scenarios at future meetings with the goal of making a final scenario presentation in June and implementing changes in August 2013. Community engagement efforts were also discussed.

3. STUDENT REASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Media Center, Nash Central High School
Monday, March 26, 2012 - 6:00 pm
Call to Order Victor Ward
Roll Call Carina Bryant
Approval of the Minutes from the February 13, 2012,
Committee Organizational Meeting
Committee Operating Procedure
Data Provided to ORED Lisa Ballance
Out of Capacity Table and Scenario Data
Mike Miller ORED
Report to School Board 4/26/12
Questions
Next Meeting
Scenario Review and Revision
Monday, April 30, 2012 3
6:00 pm

4. Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools

5. 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
5

6. Public Engagement
Board of
Education
Committee Chairs
Technical Support
Community Committee
Feedback ORED 6
Staff

7. 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.
7

8. 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.
8

9.  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
9

10.  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.

11. Mike Miller, OREd
11

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

13.  Data Collection/Compilation
 Planning Segment review: Complete
 263 Planning Segments
 61 K-12 students/segment
 Planning Segment Data loaded:
 Free/Reduced Lunch eligibility percentage (K-12 2011-12)
 Academic Proficiency percentage (Grades 3-8 EOG 2010-11)
 Minority percentage
 Student Transfer Data (see handout)
 Optimization Models
 Data loaded for three levels: Elem, Mid, High
 Preliminary analysis/scenarios
13

14.  Elementary and Middle schools grouped in High
School “clusters”
 NC DPI Month-1 Average Daily Membership (K-12) *
 Target Middle School Capacity = 750 **
* Schools-of-Choice not included in this analysis
** Parker Middle School capacity = 557
14

15. 15

16. OPTIMIZATION
16

17. 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 utilization and student balance metrics
17

18. The following preliminary scenarios will establish a baseline
for all future scenario work, including those involving student
balance metrics. The preliminary scenarios focus on:
 PROXIMITY – Minimization of system-wide student travel
distance
 UTILIZATION – Balancing system-wide building
utilization
18

19. Note: Student Balance Metric Data
 Free/Reduced Lunch – percentage of impacted population
eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch . Data supplied in aggregate
form by NRMPS, calculated across K-12.
 Academic Proficiency – percentage of impacted population
scoring Proficient in both Reading and Math. Data supplied by
NRMPS, calculated across grades 3-8.
 Minority – percentage of non-white impacted population . Data
obtained from NCWISE download, calculated by level (E/M/H)
 Data represented in aggregate form only as percentage of
school population.
19

20. Note: 2011-12 zones shown. >>>
20

21. 9-12 Student Count
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash
CURRENT 1232 1204 1130 1232
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 1169 1182 1411 1036
(See data tables in handouts.)

22. Utilization
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash
CURRENT 107% 105% 81% 115%
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 102% 103% 102% 97%
Minority %
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash
CURRENT 67% 69% 84% 51%
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 53% 62% 94% 53%

23. Free/Reduced Lunch %
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash
CURRENT 67% 65% 72% 64%
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 51% 59% 85% 67%
Academic Proficiency %
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Nash Central Northern Nash Rocky Mount Southern Nash
CURRENT 60% 61% 53% 63%
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 70% 68% 43% 62%

24. Note: 2011-12 zones shown. >>>
24

25. 6-8 Student Count
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
NEW MS (RM
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash
HS site)
CURRENT 729 633 433 910 1099 0
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 661 684 504 646 677 632
(See data tables in handouts.)

26. Target Middle School capacity = 750.
Parker capacity = 557.
Utilization
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
NEW MS (RM
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash
HS site)
CURRENT 88% 94% 78% 107% 129% 0%
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 88% 91% 90% 86% 90% 84%
Minority %
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
NEW MS (RM
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash
HS site)
CURRENT 78% 67% 88% 59% 51% 0%
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 61% 48% 90% 52% 56% 91%

27. Free/Reduced Lunch %
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
NEW MS (RM
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash
HS site)
CURRENT 73% 68% 78% 58% 64% 0%
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 63% 50% 83% 54% 70% 83%
Academic Proficiency %
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
NEW MS (RM
Edwards Nash Central Parker Red Oak Southern Nash
HS site)
CURRENT 729 633 433 910 1099 0
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 661 684 504 646 677 632

28. Note: 2011-12 zones shown. >>>
28

29. K-5 Student Count
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Red
MB Winste
Basker Benve Cedar Cooper Johnso Middle Nashvi Oak/S Spring Willifo
Bailey Hubba Pope ad/Eng
ville nue Grove s n sex lle wift Hope rd
rd lewood
Creek
CURRENT 620 341 743 221 624 475 492 340 709 279 583 550 437 1081
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 620 430 584 214 551 511 499 340 663 304 635 520 588 1036
(See data tables in handouts.)

30. Utilization
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Red Winste
MB
Basker Benve Cedar Coope Johnso Middle Nashvi Oak/S Spring Willifo ad/Eng
Bailey Hubba Pope
ville nue Grove rs n sex lle wift Hope rd lewoo
rd
Creek d
CURRENT 93% 80% 111% 99% 104% 83% 96% 81% 104% 90% 72% 101% 75% 95%
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 93% 101% 87% 96% 92% 89% 97% 81% 97% 98% 78% 96% 101% 91%
Minority %
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Red Winste
MB
Basker Benve Cedar Coope Johnso Middle Nashvi Oak/S Spring Willifo ad/Eng
Bailey Hubba Pope
ville nue Grove rs n sex lle wift Hope rd lewoo
rd
Creek d
CURRENT 65% 98% 74% 52% 31% 100% 78% 59% 49% 99% 44% 51% 97% 64%
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 65% 98% 70% 49% 26% 99% 78% 59% 49% 98% 43% 51% 91% 63%

31. Free/Reduced Lunch %
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Red Winste
MB
Basker Benve Cedar Coope Johnso Middle Nashvi Oak/S Spring Willifo ad/Eng
Bailey Hubba Pope
ville nue Grove rs n sex lle wift Hope rd lewoo
rd
Creek d
CURRENT 71% 94% 68% 73% 47% 91% 70% 70% 52% 91% 46% 65% 92% 59%
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 71% 92% 64% 71% 42% 90% 72% 70% 51% 92% 47% 65% 91% 58%
Academic Proficiency %
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Red
MB Winste
Basker Benve Cedar Cooper Johnso Middle Nashvi Oak/S Spring Willifo
Bailey Hubba Pope ad/Eng
ville nue Grove s n sex lle wift Hope rd
rd lewood
Creek
CURRENT 62% 45% 63% 73% 73% 38% 58% 61% 71% 35% 72% 60% 35% 61%
PROXIMITY + UTILIZATION 62% 47% 65% 75% 76% 36% 58% 61% 70% 36% 72% 60% 38% 62%

32. Utilization/Capacity
Demographic
Proximity
Balance
Feeder Pattern
32

33.  Data Collection/Compilation Complete!
 Out-of-Capacity Worksheet
 Preliminary Optimal Scenario Data
 Proximity + Utilization only
 Student balance metrics tracked
33

34. 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

35. QUESTIONS