Richardton Taylor PSD #34

Planning for the Future: Status of Enrollment

March 2016

1

2

Founded in 2003

Professional educational planning firm

Expertise in multiple disciplines

Over 20 years of planning experience

Over 80 years of education experience

Over 20 years of GIS experience

Clients in Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and North Dakota

Projection accuracy of 97% or greater

Planning

Robert Schwarz CEO, AICP, REFP, CEFP

Educators Diane DeBacker, Ed.D. Education Planner

Clay Guthmiller Education Planner

Jay Harris Education Planner

David Stoakes Education Planner, Ed.D.

Susan Swift Education Planner, Ph.D.

GIS Analysts

Brandon Sylvester GIS Analyst

Tyler Link GIS Analyst

3

RSP & Associates - Clients

KANSAS MISSOURI I LLINOIS NORTH DAKOTA

Baldwin City

Bonner Springs

Lawrence

Liberal

Columbia

Diamond R-IV

Pattonville R-111

Platte County R-111

Glenview 34 Alexander

lndlan Prairie 204 Bismarck

ADM

Ames

Iowa City

Johnston

Derby

De Soto

Maize

Ottawa

Fort Osage R-1 Raymore-Peculiar R-11 Naperville 203 Fargo

Harrisonville R-IX Raytown C-2 Oswego 308 Mandan McKenzie County

Ankeny

Bettendorf

Cedar Falls

Linn-Mar

Newton

North Polk Eudora Piper-Kansas City

Garden City Shawnee Heights

Gardner-Edgerton Shawnee Mission

Hutchinson Spring Hill

Kansas City Turner- Kansas City

Wichita

Jennings Rockwood Rockford 205 Minot

Kearney R-1 Troy R-111 Yorkvllle 115 New Public Schools #8

Ladue University City Rugby

North Kansas City Wright City R-11-----,..----.-.......--,--....,....-.,.....wes;;,t;;..;F..;a;;.r;..,i o-..,...._.....---,

Cedar Rapids

Clear Creek-Amana

Council Bluffs

Dallas Center Grimes

Fort Dodge

Gladbrook-Reinbeck

North Scott

Rock Valley

Sergeant Bluff-Luton

Southeast Polk

Urbandale

Waukee

West Des Moines

NEBRASKA

Bellevue

Millard

Westside

ARKANSAS

North Little Rock

Minnesota

Duluth

RSP

-C:::m.E:::m----====::::::i----Miles Map Created: 10/7/2014 0 37.5 75 150 225 300

4

Discussion Points

Enrollment and Demographics Discussion (Part 1)

• Past Enrollment

• Demographic Data

• Development Discussion

Enrollment Projections Discussion (Part 2)

• Projection Modeling

• Issues and Assumptions

• Projections

Next Steps (Part 3)

5

6

Richardton Taylor PSD 34

• Administration

County, City & Others

• Stark County

• City of Richardton

• City of Taylor

• Census Bureau/ESRI

7

• Enrollment has been increasing but is projected to stabilize with some slight increases beyond 2018/19. o Elementary Enrollment forecasted to decrease (nearly 20 students by 2020/21)

o Secondary enrollment forecasted to increase (over 30 students by 2020/21)

• Residential development activity will be slower than it has been the last few years within the District. o Slowdown in oil production could influence some households waiting out the

downturn, others are likely leaving for other economic opportunities impacting the attractiveness for developers to build new residential homes

• Recent local economic development initiatives and geographic proximity to Dickinson (rail terminal, transload and frac sand facilities, ethanol plan etc.) may result in a slightly expedited rebound compared to other smaller communities

8

District Map • District Boundary (purple line) • City Limits (solid shading) • Major Streets • Major water features

9

Planning Areas • By Land Use (Residential, Commercial, Industrial)

• By Natural Features (Rivers and Creeks)

• By Residential Density (Single-Family, Mobile Home, Duplex,• By Manmade Features (Railroad and Streets)

Apartment) • By Attendance Area

10

Planning Areas Detailed • Zoomed into both communities • Displays the power of GIS data and information • See where students are located • Student location associated to each planning area

Enrollment provided by the district. Does not include Home School, Private School, or Parochial School. 11

Enrollment By Grade Year K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total

2011/12 19 20 24 19 26 20 16 23 18 22 23 21 17 268

2012/13 27 19 24 20 17 22 20 18 24 18 24 24 20 277

2013/14 19 31 18 26 23 20 23 22 19 25 17 21 25 289

2014/15 17 27 31 19 24 24 23 28 19 23 27 16 21 299

2015/16 24 19 28 31 20 22 30 23 33 18 23 24 20 315

Source: Richardton-Taylor Public School District #34 2011/12 to 2015/16.

Pig in the Snake Effect: • Largest class in 2015/16 – 8th grade (33) • Smallest class in 2015/16 – 9th grade (18) • Graduating senior class in 2015/16 was slightly smaller than incoming this is a likely

trend that could diminish with a continued and projected slowdown in drilling activity

Enrollment provided by the district. Does not include Home School, Private School, or Parochial School. 12

Change By Grade from Previous Year

From

To

K K

1st 1st 2nd

2nd 3rd

3rd 4th

4th 5th

5th 6th

6th 7th

7th 8th

8th 9th

9th 10th

10th 11th

11th 12th

2011/12 2012/13 8 0 4 -4 -2 -4 0 2 1 0 2 1 -1

2012/13 2013/14 -8 4 -1 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 -1 -3 1

2013/14 2015/16 -2 8 0 1 -2 1 3 5 -3 4 2 -1 0

2015/16 2016/17 7 2 1 0 1 -2 6 0 5 -1 0 -3 4

3-Yr Avg -1.0 4.7 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.7 3.3 2.3 1.0 1.3 0.3 -2.3 1.7

3 Yr Wavg 1.5 4.3 0.3 0.7 0.3 -0.2 4.2 2.0 1.7 1.0 0.5 -2.3 2.2

Source: Richardton-Taylor Public School District #34 2011/12 to 2015/16.

Breaking the Table Down – Change varies by grade

• Largest average class increase – Kdg to 1st grade (+4.7) • Largest average class decrease – 10th to 11th grade (-2.3) • Most of the grade to grade change show a slight gain from one year to the next

Enrollment provided by the district. Does not include Home School, Private School, or Parochial School. 13

Natural Change Model YR K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total

2016/17 24 24 19 28 31 20 22 30 23 33 18 23 24 319

2017/18 24 24 24 19 28 31 20 22 30 23 33 18 23 319

2018/19 24 24 24 24 19 28 31 20 22 30 23 33 18 320

2019/20 24 24 24 24 24 19 28 31 20 22 30 23 33 326

2020/21 24 24 24 24 24 24 19 28 31 20 22 30 23 317

Table Explanation: • If no external change existed, and assuming the same Kindergarten number from

2015/16, the cohorts would simply matriculate through unchanged from year to year

• This would result in essentially a stagnant/stable enrollment in 5 years • Why? – Outgoing cohorts are being replaced with cohorts of generally the same size

14

• Student location associated to each planning area

Student In-Migration • 2015/16 students who are in 1st through 12th grade that

were not attending the District in 2014/15 as Kindergarten through 11th grade

• Who is new to the District that was not attending in previous years?

• Is it related to changes in the community? • 46 students were new in 2015/16

15

Student Out-Migration • Students attending the District in 2014/15 who were in

Kindergarten through 11th grade that did not attend in 2015/16 as 1st through 12th graders

• Who was in the District that is not attending now?

• Is it related to perceptions of a school building? • Is it related to changes in the community? • -31 students left the district +15 District

16

Student “Heat” Density • Red areas depict highest, gray as lowest student density • Overlapping points (2 or more students) are handled using a

weighting of coincident points

• Illustrates by student address where there is the greatest

clustering of students • This type of analysis can help with understanding student

population and geographic proximity to schools

17

• Future development in the District prospect : Residential or Nonresidential : likely residential

• Total new units projected to be minimal the next few years

• The slowdown in drilling over the last couple of years and the recent down turn in oil price per barrel, will likely result in less new activity occurring within the District

• Transiency of families/workers leaving the community potential is higher if good paying employment opportunities decrease

• The respective jurisdictions couldn’t provide concrete data but suggested that permits issued have decreased dramatically over the last few years. Richardton issued 3 permits in 2015.

18

RSP analyzed several growth models including cohort survival method, housing unit projection modeling and various linear regression models. Due to the lack of building permit data as well as the limited student enrollment size, preference was give to the regression modeling.

The modeling results in low, mid, and high level projections for the years 2016/17 – 2020/21. RSP recommends using the mid-point projections for analysis purposes. Because of limited data, the models are largely based on historical enrollment for the District.

The data is statistically analyzed to provide an likely enrollment forecast that takes into account economic variables that could influence the type of household moving into the District. The District will be able to use RSP’s reports and maps to better understand demographic trends, school utilization, and the timing of improvement projects.

19

• As of March 10, Oil was at $34/barrel

• Production analysts anticipate oil will drop again to around $30/barrel sometime in the foreseeable future due to record high storage

• Some companies halting plans for new wells; Hess Corp announced plans to drill 80 new wells……

• So, how long will the low prices last? Will people commit to stay until prices turn around?

• Analysts believe production levels will return once oil hits $40/barrel. New production will likely begin around $55/barrel

20

The above numbers are not the Certified Enrollment Count Does not include Home School, Private School, or Parochial School 21

Enrollment Growth Scenarios

400

375

350

325

300

275

School Year

High Mid Low

Enrollment Projections

250 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

High 268 277 289 299 315 336 339 353 359 357

Mid 268 277 289 299 315 317 312 320 330 328

Low 268 277 289 299 315 303 298 295 300 304

Source: Richardton Taylor Public Schools & RSP Projection Modeling

RSP recommends planning with the Mid-projection

Stu

de

nt

Enro

llme

nt

The above numbers are not the Certified Enrollment Count Does not include Home School, Private School, or Parochial School 22

149 160 165

Source: Richardton Taylor Schools and RSP Projection Modeling

Elementary enrollment expected to decrease over the next five years Secondary enrollment expected to increase over the next five years

144 174

RSP Recommended Projection 400

K-6 7-12 Proj K-6 Proj 7-12 District

350

315 317 330

250

134 141 153 155 172 173

150

100

50

0

312 320

328

300 289 299

268 277

129 152

200 124 128

164 160 165 158 155

20

20

/21

20

19

/20

20

18

/19

20

17

/18

20

16

/17

20

15

/16

20

14

/15

20

13

/14

20

12

/13

20

11

/12

1. Future Kindergarten round up will indicate if the incoming KDG class will be closer to 15 students or 25 students – projections indicate likely closer to 20 students

2. The number of new residential activity will drive the potential for future households moving into the District

3. The price for a barrel of oil will drive the economic opportunities that can occur in and around the District

23

24

Part 3: Next Steps

25

Next Steps

• District administration and the Board of Education further study the projected enrollment and development information presented – compare that to the capacity of the existing facilities to better know the timing for new facilities and/or additions to existing facilities

• Monitor development opportunities, kindergarten round up, and economic data to assist in knowing how those variables will influence the RSP projections

• Continue to make decisions and communicate that information to the community so they can understand how educational opportunities will support 21st Century Learning for College and Career Readiness

26

NOTES