School Board Workshop III Superintendent’s Initial BoundarySuperintendent s Initial Boundary 

RecommendationsS h l B d i d G th M tSchool Boundaries and Growth Management 

October 27, 2009

James F. Notter, Superintendent

D V d F A ti D t S i t d tDr. Verda Farrow, Acting Deputy Superintendent, Educational Programs & Student Support Services

Leslie Brown, Executive Director, Educational Programs

Jill Young, Director, School BoundariesChris Akagbosu, Director, Growth Management

Slide 1

Page 1 of 116

Introduction P t I hPart I:  Growth Management Process

Update on Amending the Interlocal Agreement 

Part II: School Boundary ProcessPart II:  School Boundary ProcessUpdate on Class Size Reduction

District data reflected in the fall update to the online Planning Tool for School Enrollment and Capacity

Updated Comprehensive Boundary Review Table

2010‐11 Superintendent’s Initial Boundary Recommendations

• New School “C” Montessori (Proposed Prek‐8)

• Virginia Shuman Young Elementary (existing elementary Montessori)

S i Middl S h l ( i ti iddl M t i)• Sunrise Middle School (existing middle Montessori)

• Pioneer Middle School

• Wedge Annexation – Elementary, Middle, High

Slide 2

Part III:  Next StepsSchool Board Direction

Page 2 of 116

Part IUpdate on Potential Amendment of the Amended Interlocal

Agreement for Public School Facility Planning (ILA)August 25, 2009 Workshop ‐ School Board directed staff to present the following amendments to the Amended ILA to the Oversight Subcommittee:

Expanded Concurrency Service Areas (CSA’s) from individual school boundaries to larger (8) geographic areas:

Agreement for Public School Facility Planning (ILA) 

Expanded Concurrency Service Areas (CSA s) from individual school boundaries to larger (8) geographic areas:Priority 1:  Amend Level of Service Standard (LOS) to 110% gross capacity using larger (8) CSAs, or  Priority 2:  Maintain LOS at 110% permanent FISH capacity using larger (8) CSAs

Oversight Subcommittee Meeting – September  17, 2009

Staff presented larger (8) CSA’s and related supporting dataSubcommittee unsupportive of Board’s recommendation and unanimously voted to recommend the following to the Oversight Committee:

School Board to consider repurposing under enrolled schoolsAdoption of the Miami‐Dade County Model which sunsets the use of 100% gross capacity at all individual school boundaries by 2018 but for Broward sunset occurs sooner in 2015Phase in boundary changes in the interim years by utilizing excess permanent capacity at under enrolled schoolsAnalyze expanded CSA’s (smaller than initially presented to the subcommittee) in combination with LOS d l i f f h l i h i b kl d i hLOS and longer concurrency timeframe up to ten years for schools with capacity backlogged in the ten year DEFP plan.  This requires a change in the ILA

Oversight  Committee Meeting – October 14, 2009Oversight Committee Recommendation:  Change the level of service to 100% of gross capacity at each individual school attendance boundary as the CSA with a sunset of using gross capacity at 2015

Slide 3

individual school attendance boundary as the CSA with a sunset of using gross capacity at 2015 Timeline (pages 113‐116)

Page 3 of 116

Part IOversight Subcommittee Meeting – September  17, 2009

Amend the Level of Service (LOS) to 110% gross capacity from using individual school ( ) g p y gattendance boundaries to larger areas, i.e. more schools grouped (8) geographic areas 

Elementary Middle High

Slide 4

Page 4 of 116

Part IOversight Subcommittee Meeting – September  17, 2009 

Amend the Level of Service (LOS) to 110% permanent capacity from using individual school ( ) p p y gattendance boundaries to larger areas,  i.e. more schools grouped (8) geographic areas

Elementary Middle High

Slide 5

Page 5 of 116

Part IOversight  Committee Meeting – October 14, 2009

As per Oversight Subcommittee recommendation, show the Level of Service (LOS) at 110% t it ith d d b t llpermanent capacity with expanded but smaller areas, 

i.e. less schools grouped (12) geographic areas as a compromise

2014‐15 LOS based on permanent capacity ‐ the dark gray geographic areas do not comply with LOS and require a longer concurrency timeframe to meet LOS

Elementary Middle High

with LOS and require a longer concurrency timeframe to meet LOS

Slide 6

Page 6 of 116

Part IExisting vs Proposed ILA LOS Standard ‐ Elementary Schools

Current:Oversight Committee Recommendation:Oversight CommitteeCurrent:

ILA LOS in 2013-14 with 110% Permanent Capacity at each individual school attendance boundary

Recommendation: sunset on the use of gross capacity in 2014-15 returning to 110% Permanent Capacity at each individual school

Oversight Committee Recommendation: ILA LOS in 2013-14 with 100% Gross Capacity at each individual school attendanceattendance boundary at each individual school

attendance boundary individual school attendance boundary

This is what we have now If amended by Oct. 2010, this is what it looks like in 2013-14

With or without the proposed amendment this is what we will have in 2014-15 Slide 7

Page 7 of 116

Part IExisting vs Proposed ILA LOS Standard ‐Middle Schools

Current:Oversight Committee Recommendation:Oversight CommitteeCurrent:

ILA LOS in 2013-14 with 110% Permanent Capacity at each individual school attendance boundary

Recommendation: sunset on the use of gross capacity in 2014-15 returning to 110% Permanent Capacity at each individual school

Oversight Committee Recommendation: ILA LOS in 2013-14 with 100% Gross Capacity at each individual school attendanceattendance boundary at each individual school

attendance boundary individual school attendance boundary

This is what we have now If amended by Oct. 2010, this is what it looks like in 2013-14

With or without the proposed amendment this is what we will have in 2014-15 Slide 8

Page 8 of 116

Part IExisting vs Proposed ILA LOS Standard ‐ High Schools

C tOversight Committee Recommendation:Oversight CommitteeCurrent:

ILA LOS in 2013-14 with 110% Permanent Capacity at each individual school tt d b d

Recommendation: sunset on the use of gross capacity in 2014-15 returning to 110% Permanent Capacity at each individual school

Oversight Committee Recommendation: ILA LOS in 2013-14 with 100% Gross Capacity at each individual school attendanceattendance boundary at each individual school

attendance boundary individual school attendance boundary

This is what we have now If amended by Oct. 2010, this is what it looks like in 2013-14

With or without the proposed amendment this is what we will have in 2014-15 Slide 9

Page 9 of 116

Part IEffect of changing the ILA to 100% Gross CapacitySchools Impacted by Large Domino Boundary Changes

Slide 10

Page 10 of 116

Part IEffect of changing the ILA to 100% Gross CapacitySchools Impacted by Adjacent Boundary Changes

Slide 11

Page 11 of 116

Part IOversight  Committee Meeting – October 14, 2009As per Oversight Subcommittee recommendation, show the Level of Service (LOS) at 110% 

permanent capacity with expanded but smaller areas, i.e. less schools grouped (12) geographic areas as a compromise as shown is slide 6

2014‐15 LOS based on permanent capacity ‐ the dark gray geographic areas do not comply with LOS and require a longer concurrency timeframe to meet LOS

Elementary Middle High

with LOS and require a longer concurrency timeframe to meet LOS

Slide 12

Recommendation: Bring back the compacted (12) CSAs at 110% permanent capacity and a longer concurrency timeframe for middle level CSAs 6 & 12 to the Oversight Committee.

Page 12 of 116

Part IIPart II:  School Boundary Process

Update on Class Size Reduction

Di i d fl d i h f ll d h li Pl i T lDistrict data reflected in the fall update to the online Planning Tool for School Enrollment and Capacity

Updated Comprehensive Boundary Review Table

2010‐11 Superintendent's Initial Boundary Recommendationsp y

• New School “C” Montessori (Proposed PreK‐8)

• Virginia Shuman Young Elementary (existing elementary Montessori)Montessori)

• Sunrise Middle School (existing middle Montessori)

• Pioneer Middle School

W d A ti El t Middl Hi h

Slide 13

• Wedge Annexation – Elementary, Middle, High

Page 13 of 116

For 2010-11 three factors will determine Class Size Reduction compliance: facility space,

Part IIUpdate on Class Size ReductionData Gathering Process & Timeline

p y p ,funding, and number of teachers. Out-of-compliance schools lacking sufficient facility space are reviewed in the boundary process.

Timeline of CSR Data Analysis for 2010-112009-1020th Day

Data

FTE/CSRSurvey 2FLDOE Data Snap ShotCSRPeriod-by-Period& Relocatable Analysis

InitialCSR/Boundary

RecommendationsFinal

CSR/BoundaryRecommendations

Receive FLDOE

Data

Friday, October 16th - A “snap-shot” of class size data was sent to FLDOE. Thisbegan the process of data review to determine the schools out of school-wide

Sept Oct 16th Oct 19th – Nov 13th Nov 13 DecemberEnd of Nov

average class size compliance.

Next steps:Friday, November 13th - The final send of 2009-10 class size data to the State.The final report will be received back several weeks later. At that time, a period-by-period analysis will be done locally, along with a period-by-period space allocation analysis for 2010-11 based on the school’s master schedule. We receive FLDOE data back from the state several weeks later.

Master schedules will determine if schools have rooms for programs and if they need additional teachers. The cost depends on the October FTE enrollment and whether additional teachers will need to be hired to support the programs offered in the Master Schedule. Slide 14

Page 14 of 116

School Capacity Tool Fall Data UpdatePart II

d d h O b d ilhttp://webapp.browardschools.com/schoolenrollment/splash1.aspx

Data updated each October and April

*AYP d

NEWreport

*AYP and Reassignment data becomesavailable Thursday, Oct. 22

Boundary Process Drivers

p

Driver 1: The State Plant Survey

D i 2Driver 2: Class Size Reduction

Driver 3:

Slide 15

School Concurrency Level of Service

Page 15 of 116

Comprehensive Boundary Review TablePart II

See Additional Materials under pages (pages 26‐33)See Additional Materials under pages (pages 26 33)

Yellow Phase II Schools

Purple Monitor Phase schools to be watched to ensure meeting LOS

Slide 16

Page 16 of 116

Part II2010-11 Superintendent's Initial B d R d ti

New School “C” (Lincoln Park Site) Montessori

Boundary Recommendations

Proposed PreK‐8Maps and data located on pages 34‐44

Option A Option B

2009-10 Waitlist Virginia Shuman Young Montessori Program =

891 540 students

Slide 17

Page 17 of 116

Part II2010-11 Superintendent's Initial Boundary RecommendationsVirginia Shuman Young Elementary

Sunrise Middle

Boundary Recommendations

New School “C” Montessori does not affect Virginia Shuman Sunrise Middle

Maps and data located on pages 46‐49

• VSY • Sunrise

does not affect Virginia Shuman Young ES to Sunrise MS to Fort Lauderdale HS feeder pattern.

• VSY Sunrise

Slide 18

Page 18 of 116

Part II2010-11 Superintendent's Initial Boundary Recommendations

Pioneer Middle SchoolMaps and data located on pages 50‐60

*If h ld ff b d h thi f Pi t d t i th t f th ILA d t th

Option A Option B

*If we hold off on a boundary change this year for Pioneer to determine the outcome of the ILA amendment thenall grades move at once during next year’s boundary process to meet current ILA standard in 2011-12.

Slide 19

Page 19 of 116

Part II2010-11 Superintendent's Initial Boundary Recommendations

Wedge Area Elementary School AssignmentMaps and data located on pages 62‐68

Option A Option B

Slide 20

Page 20 of 116

Part II2010-11 Superintendent's Initial Boundary Recommendations

Wedge Area Middle School AssignmentMaps and data located on pages 70‐77

Option A Option B

Slide 21

Page 21 of 116

Part II2010-11 Superintendent's Initial Boundary Recommendations

Wedge Area High School AssignmentMaps and data located on pages 78‐84

Option A Option B

Slide 22

Page 22 of 116

Part III

Part III:  Next Steps

School Board Direction

Slide 23

Page 23 of 116

Part IIISchool Board Direction

1)  To Formally Initiate Specific Amendment(s) to the Amended ILA Based on:

October 14, 2009 Oversight Committee recommendation

New recommendation slide 12New recommendation slide 12

Consider including Staff Working Group requests for updated timeframes and processes in the Amended ILA

2) d i S i d ’ I i i l 2010 11 S h l d d i2)  Recommendation on Superintendent’s Initial 2010‐11 School Boundary Recommendations

3)  Continue Boundary Process Timeline

Step 9. November‐December Community Conferences

(See pages 86‐89)

Step 10. Dec. 8th School Board Boundary Workshop IV providing communityinput and Superintendent’s final school boundary recommendations

Step 11. January and February Public Hearings 

Slide 24

Page 24 of 116