1

WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM Growth & Crowding

… the Past and Future

Joint Board Meeting: Wake County Board of CommissionersWake County Board of EducationMarch 19, 2008

Christina Lighthall, REFPSr. Director, Long Range Planning

Growth and Planning

2

A Review of Growth and Crowding

between 2001-02 and 2007-08

(PLAN 2004: 2005-06 through 2007-08)

Part I: The Past

3

Membership Projections Comparison to Actuals

(includes +1%,+1.5%)

Actual Membership

YEAR

PLAN 2004

Developed 2003

CIP 2006 Developed

2005

PLAN 2004

Developed 2003

CIP 2006 Developed

20052003-04 108,921

2004-05 111,464 114,035 2,571

2005-06 114,526 120,507 5,981

2006-07 117,242 127,513 128,070 10,828 557

2007-08 120,675 136,304 134,002 13,327 (2,302)

2008-09 123,747 144,227 N/A N/A

2009-10 152,838 N/A

2010-11 162,370 N/A

Membership Projections

Difference from Actual (# of Actual +/-

Projections)

4

Membership Projections Comparison to Actuals

111,464

114,526

117,242

127,513

120,675

136,304

108,970

120,507

114,092

134,002

128,072

105,000

110,000

115,000

120,000

125,000

130,000

135,000

140,000

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Membership ProjectionsPLAN 2004 Developed2003

Membership ProjectionsCIP 2006 Developed2005

Actual Membership

5

Number of Students Not In Permanent Seats

2001-02 2007-08 Elementary 5,959 11,940 Middle 2,688 4,646 High 2,242 4,250 Total 10,889 20,836

6

Students Not in Permanent Seats

Accelerated growth was addressed with: Setting up temporary 9th grade centers Creating modular campuses Introducing “Early Start” schools Accommodating more students and

teachers in non-standard learning spaces Adding more mobile and modular

classrooms on existing school campuses

7

Percentage of Long Range K-8 School Level Crowding

(Membership/Long Range Campus Capacity)

124.1%

121.2%

101.1%101.9%

104.0%

111.7%

115.6%

114.6%

114.2%112.7%

104.1%

114.3%

118.2%

104.4%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

105.0%

110.0%

115.0%

120.0%

125.0%

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Elementary

Middle

Goal

8

Percentage of Long Range 9-12 School Level Crowding

(Membership/Long Range Campus Capacity)

102.4%

100.8%

110.8%

107.4%

113.2%110.7%110.2%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

105.0%

110.0%

115.0%

120.0%

125.0%

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

High

HighGoal

9

Percentage of Annual K-8 School Level Crowding(Membership/Actual Campus Capacity)

105.6%

104.8%

101.9%

96.5%

95.3%95.6%

96.3%

98.5%

99.3%

97.0%

104.1%

97.2%

102.5%

97.9%

92.0%

94.0%

96.0%

98.0%

100.0%

102.0%

104.0%

106.0%

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Elementary

Middle

Goal

10

98.5%

93.3%

99.8%

96.3%

100.0%

96.3%

97.6%

92.0%

94.0%

96.0%

98.0%

100.0%

102.0%

104.0%

106.0%

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

High

Goal

Percentage of Annual 9-12 School Level Crowding(Membership/Actual Campus Capacity)

Holly Springs & Panther Creek

Knightdale; Cary & Green Hope 9th Grade Centers

Middle Creek

W-F & Wakefield 9th Grade Centers

11

Mobile and Modular Classrooms

The mobile classroom inventory has doubled since 2001-02

There are 423 more mobile/modular classrooms than four years ago in 2003-04

There are 10,700 more students accommodated in temporary units this year than was reported in 2003-04

12

School Level Mobiles(Including Swing Space)

402

613636

125148

132 121

173

220174 174 186

221

680

312

352336

218

250218

121

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Elementary

Middle

High

13

Percentage of School Levels

in Mobile Units

6.0%

12.8%

11.2%

27.3%27.0%

20.8%20.8%

18.5%

12.0%

16.3%

14.7%

11.0%

10.9%

8.5%

7.9%

15.1%

15.8%14.5%

12.0%

9.5%

8.3%

5.0%

7.5%

10.0%

12.5%

15.0%

17.5%

20.0%

22.5%

25.0%

27.5%

30.0%

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Elementary

Middle

High

Goal

14

In Summary: Part IPlan 2004

Elementary Middle High

2001-02 2007-08 2001-02 2007-08 2001-02 2007-08

Students not in Permanent Seats 5,959 11,940 2,688 4,646 2,242 4,250

% Long Range Crowding

104.1 %

115.6 %

101.1% 114.3 % 102.4%110.7

%

% Actual Crowding 97.2 % 96.5 % 97.9% 97.0 % 98.5% 97.6 %

# Mobiles 312 636 125 218 121 250

% in Mobiles 12.0% 16.3 % 11.0% 15.8 % 8.3% 11.2 %

15

A Projection of Growth and Crowding

between 2007-08 and 2011-12

(CIP 2006: 2008-09 through 2010-11)

Part II: The Future

16

Membership Projections Update (includes +1%,+1.5%)

YEAR

CIP 2006 Developed

2005

DeJong Methodology

Nov 2007Actual

MembershipDifference from Actual

Difference between

Projections2003-04 108,970

2004-05 114,092

2005-06 120,507

2006-07 127,513 128,072 559

2007-08 136,304 134,002 (2,302)

2008-09 144,227 140,437 (3,790)

2009-10 152,838 148,509 (4,329)

2010-11 162,370 155,786 (6,584)

2011-12 170,611 162,933 (7,678)2012-13 177,089 171,047 (6,042)2013-14 183,266 180,470 (2,796)2014-15 189,429 189,570 1412015-16 195,639 198,671 3,032

Membership Projections

17

Membership Projections Comparisons

140,437

148,509

155,786

162,933

171,047

152,838

162,370

170,611

177,089

183,266

134,002

198,671

180,470

189,570

189,429 195,639

144,277

130000

140000

150000

160000

170000

180000

190000

200000

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Nov. 2007Projections

CIP 2006Projections

2007 Actuals

18

Difference between CIP 2006 and Nov 2007

Projections

(2,622)

(4,054)

(5,167)

(6,553)(6,734)

(5,705)

(3,892)

(2,981)

(1,794)

(172)(329)(377)(518)(835)(907)

(542)(576)(412)

5,826

4,525

2,748

1,030

(109)28106(227)(94)

(8,000)

(6,000)

(4,000)

(2,000)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Elementary

Middle

High

19

Projected Number of Students Not In Permanent

Seats

2007-08 2010-11 Elementary 11,940 9,601 Middle 4,646 5,190 High 4,250 7,029 Total 20,836 21,820

20

Projected StudentsNot in Permanent Seats

Sustained growth at the secondary level isaddressed with: Continued use of satellite 9th grade centers Using modular campuses Introducing “Early Start” middle schools Accommodating more students and

teachers in non-standard learning spaces Adding more modular classrooms on

existing high school campuses

21

Projected % of Long Range

K-8 School Level Crowding(Membership/Long Range Campus Capacity)

117.7%

120.4%

114.2%113.2%113.6%

115.6%119.8%

118.8%

114.3%

118.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

105.0%

110.0%

115.0%

120.0%

125.0%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Elementary

Middle

Goal

22

Projected % of Long Range

9-12 School Level Crowding

(Membership/Long Range Campus Capacity)

112.1%110.7% 111.4%

112.1% 111.5%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

105.0%

110.0%

115.0%

120.0%

125.0%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

High

High Goal

23

94.7%

95.7%

101.5%

95.1%

96.5%

99.1%

99.8%

100.9%

100.1%

97.0%

94.0%

95.0%

96.0%

97.0%

98.0%

99.0%

100.0%

101.0%

102.0%

103.0%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Elementary

Middle

Goal

Projected % of Annual K-8 School Level Crowding(Membership/Actual Campus Capacity)

24

96.7%

97.4% 97.4%

96.8%

97.6%

94.0%

95.0%

96.0%

97.0%

98.0%

99.0%

100.0%

101.0%

102.0%

103.0%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

High

Goal

Projected % of Annual 9-12 School Level Crowding(Membership/Actual Campus Capacity)

Heritage

H-6

25

Mobile and Modular Classrooms

2008-09 56 swing space units and and net gain of 3 capacity

units are being added for elementary schools 50 mobile units are being added at the high school

level to address crowding Middle schools are losing units due to freeing up

swing space mobiles/modulars

By 2010-11 Elementary schools could reduce their mobile

inventory Middle Schools can not add more mobiles for capacity High schools gain more modulars to address

crowding

26

Projected School Level Mobiles

(if units are reduced at elementary level)

636

693

629

566 574

192178

214

184

250

300

365

218

365363

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-2011 2011-2012

Elementary

Middle

High

27

Projected % of School Levels

in Mobile Units

12.5%13.7%

14.9%

13.9%

16.8%16.3%

13.8%

15.6%

15.8%

17.9%

16.3%

15.3%

11.2%

16.9%

15.3%

5.0%

7.5%

10.0%

12.5%

15.0%

17.5%

20.0%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-2011 2011-2012

% Elementaryin MobileUnits% MiddleSchool inMobile Units% HighSchool inMobile UnitsGoal

28

In Summary: Part IICIP 2006

Elementary Middle High

2007-08 2010-112007-

082010-11

2007-08

2010-11

Students not in Permanent Seats 11,940 9,601 4,646 5,190 4,250 7,029

% Long Range Crowding 115.6 % 114.2 %

114.3%

117. 7%110.7

%111.5

%

% Actual Crowding 96.5 % 95.7 % 97.0 % 99.8% 97.6% 97.4%

# Mobiles 636 574 218 184 250 365

% in Mobiles 16.3 % 12.8 % 15.8% 14.9% 11.1 % 16.3%

M-6 & H-6 open in 2011

29

Future Planning Questions

Do we use membership projections based on November 2007 Updates?

Do we strive toward 8% of students in mobile units at the elementary level? What about middle schools and high schools where use of mobiles is increasing?

Do we strive toward 95% (elementary and middle) and 97.5% (high school) utilization when possible?

Do we reduce future permanent capacity by opening new elementary or middle schools on a traditional rather than on a year-round calendar?