PresentationElementary Boundary Study

April 23, 2019

1

Preview of Tonight’s Meeting

• Welcome Dr. Sidle, Superintendent

• Scope and Purpose of Study Mr. Schoch, Consultant

• Objectives and Goals Mr. Schoch

• Decision Making Methods Mr. Schoch

• Boundary Recommendations Mr. Schoch • Supporting Data and Rationale

• Implementation Plan Dr. Sidle

• Questions Dr. Sidle, Mr. Schoch

2

Scope and Purpose of Study• Scope:

• Limited to Kindergarten to 3rd Grade boundaries, in four existing schools because all other schools serve students districtwide

• Purpose: • Analyze enrollment trends within each of the four existing K to 3rd grade attendance

boundaries • Compare projected enrollments in each attendance area with the capacity of the

existing K to 3rd grade school serving that area• Recommend any necessary changes to attendance boundaries anticipating the

projected enrollments• Change boundaries to utilize school capacity• Reserve capacity at schools serving residential growth areas• Identify adjustment methods in the event that minor adjustments are needed in the

future

3

Decision Making Process

• Committee with wide representation and viewpoints • Met six times over three months reviewing extensive amounts of data and options• Developed an understanding of enrollment trends and enrollment projection

methods• Established objectives for drawing new boundary lines and implementing the

changes• Used sophisticated computer mapping (Geographic Information Systems-GIS) to

display many types of information• Developed boundary options and minor variations • Evaluated how well the various options met objectives

• Consensus recommendation of committee to the School Board for new boundary lines

4

Objectives• For establishing elementary boundaries

• Anticipate enrollment change districtwide and by elementary school in order to utilize available capacity of the schools

• Balance class size for instructional, administrative, and financial reasons• Assigned to the closest school to minimize travel time for students• Keep families/neighborhoods together

• For implementing the boundary changes• Reroute buses to minimize travel time • Minimize the number of students and families reassigned, while reserving capacity

for future• Review guidelines, policies, processes and practices regarding student assignment

• For the future• Establish annual review process to monitor plan• Develop an adjustment mechanism to maintain the plan as long as possible

The Major Questions to Be Answered

• What are the capacities of the existing elementary schools to provide a modern educational program?

• What are the projected enrollments of the existing elementary attendance areas?

• Can the existing facilities accommodate projected enrollments?

• How much, if any, additional capacity is needed?

• Can reassignment of students from one elementary school to another accommodate the projected enrollments?

• How long will new attendance areas remain adequate?

• Can the longevity of new attendance areas be extended through interim adjustment methods?

Preview of Recommended Boundaries

• Preview for overall understanding of areas and extent of redistricting

• The data and reasons for each area will be explained individually

• General background information will be provided first to demonstrate why the extent of redistricting is required and where

7

8

Proposed moves are dots with color different from area shading.

Data and objectives for each area will be explained later.

From York Haven to Orendorf

From Orendorfto Mt. Wolf

From Conewagoto Orendorf

Enrollment is Affected by Economic Factors• Birth rates declined by 10% from 2009 to 2014 resulting in 30 fewer

students per birth year (age cohort). This is a known phenomenon when severe economic recession causes insecurity about jobs. In other school districts in Pennsylvania, the decline was as much as 30%.

• The residential growth required to offset birth rate decline is calculated as follows:• 500 single family homes yield 0.93 students per home equals 465 new students

divided by 13 grade levels (K plus grades 1-12) equals 36 students per grade level (age cohort)

• In summary, it takes almost 500 new homes to offset birth rate decline in the age group currently entering as Kindergarten students.

• While you can see new homes and expect crowded schools, declining birth rates are not apparent.

• Great Recession of 2008-09 continues to impact enrollment• Birth rates took several years to rebound to 2009 levels• Pent-up demand for new housing is slowing• Normal economic cycles can change again, possibly soon

9

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

ConewagoElementary

Mount WolfElementary

OrendorfElementary

York HavenElementary

Shallow BrookIntermediate

School

Spring ForgeIntermediate

School

NortheasternMiddle School

NortheasternHigh School

Students Per School

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Grade Level (0=K)

Students Per Grade Level

Difference of 2 to 3 classes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

No

np

ub

lic s

tud

ents

Grade Levels

Non-public Students Per Grade

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Public and Non-Public by Grade

Non-Public Public

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 9 10 11 12 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3

Conewago Elementary Mount Wolf Elem Northeastern High School NortheasternMiddle School

Orendorf Elementary Shallow BrookIntermediate School

Spring Forge IntermediateSchool

York Haven Elementary

Students by School / Grade

Annual adjustment of staffing levels is required as age cohort progresses.

Class Size Trends-Kindergarten (guideline 18-20)School Classroom Grade 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Conewago C102 K 18 17 16 16 18 19

Conewago C104 K 19 17 17 18 17 20

Conewago C106 K 18 18 15 16 17 19

Conewago C108 K 19 17 17 17 18 19

Conewago C201 K 17 18 13 14 17 20

Mt Wolf W107 K 20

Mt Wolf W203 K 19 17 16 17 12 16

Mt Wolf W204 K 14 15 14 11 16

Mt Wolf W206 K 21 15 15 16 10 15

Orendorf Z101 K 21 21 19 18 19 18

Orendorf Z102 K 21 21 17 19 17 18

Orendorf Z103 K 17 19 18

Orendorf Z104 K 18 21 14 20 19 16

Orendorf Z105 K 19 22 17 19

York Haven Y203 K 18 15 12 11 16 19

York Haven Y205 K 19 18 14 11 14 20

York Haven Y207 K 19 17 17 11 16 21

York Haven Y209 K 18 18 17 14 16 20

Lower class size than other schools

One classroom available

Class Size Trends-Grade 1 (guideline 20-22)

School Classroom Grade 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Conewago C203 01 23 18 19 16 17 17

Conewago C204 01 23 19 18 17 19 18

Conewago C205 01 23 18 18 18 19 18

Conewago C206 01 20 18 17 15 19 15

Conewago C208 01 17 14 16 18 18

Mt Wolf W105 01 3 3 17 14 13

Mt Wolf W106 01 20 20 16 12 13 18

Mt Wolf W107 01 21 14 16 16 19

Mt Wolf W108 01 21 21

Orendorf Z107 01 23 20 19 20 18 18

Orendorf Z108 01 24 21 18 23 21 19

Orendorf Z109 01 22 22 20 22 19 19

Orendorf Z110 01 22 21 20 22 19 18

York Haven Y210 01 18 21 16 17 22 20

York Haven Y211 01 14 17 11 14 18 19

York Haven Y212 01 18 19 15 18

York Haven Y213 01 18 18 13 17 20 19

Reduced from 3 to 2 classes to balance class size

Reduced from 4 to 3 classes

Class Size Trends-Grade 2 (guideline 20-22)School Classroom Grade 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Conewago C202 02 21 18 21 22

Conewago C303 02 26 22 18 23 23 19

Conewago C304 02 26 19 21 23 21 17

Conewago C305 02 23 23 21 19 22 16

Conewago C400 02 20

Conewago C405 02 15

Mt Wolf W105 02 2 2 13

Mt Wolf W200 02 22 19 21 17 14 15

Mt Wolf W202 02 21 19 18 17 14

Mt Wolf W205 02 18 19

Mt Wolf W207 02 17 15 14

Orendorf Z202 02 18 22 23 23 23 18

Orendorf Z203 02 16 24 20 22 24 21

Orendorf Z204 02 17 23 20 23 20 19

Orendorf Z205 02 21 24 22 22 23 18

Orendorf Z206 02 22

York Haven Y103 02 20 21 22 19 18 22

York Haven Y105 02 18 19 19 16 15 19

York Haven Y107 02 22 21 21 22 20 22

York Haven Y212 02 19

Lower class sizes than other schools

Higher class sizes than other schools, still within guidelines

Increase 1 class to lower class sizes

One classroom available

Class Size Trends-Grade 3 (guideline 22-24)School Classroom Grade 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Conewago C306 03 25 18 23 18 23 23

Conewago C307 03 22 19 19 21 24 24

Conewago C308 03 24 18 23 19 20 22

Conewago C309 03 22 20 22 21 24 24

Mt Wolf W108 03 20 21 17 15

Mt Wolf W202 03 13

Mt Wolf W205 03 16 20 18

Mt Wolf W207 03 15 22 20

Mt Wolf W208 03 15 21 19 22 18 13

Orendorf Z207 03 18 18 23 20 21 24

Orendorf Z208 03 22

Orendorf Z209 03 17 18 24 23 22 25

Orendorf Z210 03 24 18 24 20 22 24

Orendorf Z211 03 24 20 21 23 24 24

York Haven Y108 03 19 17 18 21 16 16

York Haven Y109 03 23 19 21 21 24 18

York Haven Y110 03 20

York Haven Y111 03 24 21 20 20 22 19

Higher class sizes

Lower class sizes, much decline in 2 years

138 total divided by 7 classes = 20/class

One classroom available

Increase / Decrease Age <5, 5-9, 10-14

2016 ACS vs 2010 Census

Losing elementary age population in all age

groups

Gaining elementary age population in all

age groups

Large decrease in <5 relative to

other age groups

19

Significant enrollment change in many neighborhoods in the past decade

Increase / Decrease Age 5-9

2016 ACS vs 2010 Census

20

Increase / Decrease Age <5

2016 ACS vs 2010 Census

Forewarning of future Kindergarten enrollments

Conclusions from Analysis of Class Size Trends

• Over six years, class sizes are more balanced, with less variation between the smallest and largest at each grade level.

• Class sizes have become smaller over time. This is common in schools districts in the past few years due in part to unknown birth rate decline.

• Third grade class size is much higher at Orendorf and Conewago compared to Mt. Wolf.

• Mt. Wolf has the lowest class sizes at all grade levels due to neighborhood change.

• Enrollments from many neighborhoods have changed significantly as children in younger families age, new homes are built, and older homes are sold to younger families.

School Capacity for Modern Educational Program

• Modern educational programs require more small group instruction (SGI) spaces.

• Some programs have been placed in schools with space available due to enrollment decline.

• Ideally, each school would have a fixed number of full-size classrooms for regular education and other programs would be distributed to all schools. Because age cohorts (students at a grade level) differ in size within an attendance area, the number of teachers/classes is adjusted to meet class size guidelines.

• Full size classroom space is available at Mt. Wolf and Orendorf, but will require relocation of some small group uses currently in full size classrooms.

• Due to ongoing residential development, classroom space should be reserved at Conewago and York Haven.

• Although undesirable, a few classrooms could be available by finding other locations for shared spaces

• IU Fair Share-each district must house some IU wide programs, for low incidence programs serving several districts

• Headstart

Long-term Planning-To be sure short-term plans work long-term• What do enrollment projections predict?

• How much residential growth should we expect?

• Where will residential growth occur?

• How accurately can we predict residential growth by elementary attendance area?

• Note: Enrollment projections prior to the Great Recession predicted enrollments as much as 50% (2000 students) more than actually occurred due to the inability to predict birth rate decline caused by severe economic insecurity.

24

Enrollment ProjectionsUsing actual enrollments, calculate the historic rate of change, apply that rate to project future enrollments

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

2011-2012 299 312 330 308 316 343 279 299 284 272 274 224 246 3786

2012-2013 305 274 301 309 317 324 330 276 304 260 266 259 213 3738

2013-2014 305 301 276 299 311 313 321 320 272 278 245 259 231 3731

2014-2015 286 316 302 277 298 323 315 323 312 262 259 248 230 3751

2015-2016 287 292 312 309 273 296 331 323 325 316 258 239 222 3783

2016-2017 265 287 311 315 316 282 299 320 322 306 307 230 226 3786

2017-2018 263 276 295 303 307 329 290 316 338 297 300 294 214 3822

2018-2019 291 253 272 300 313 315 328 307 323 306 303 278 258 3847

Birth to K Birth to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 10 to 11 11 to 12

2011-12 to 2012-13 1.08541 1.04981 0.96474 0.93636 1.02922 1.02532 0.96210 0.98925 1.01672 0.91549 0.97794 0.94526 0.95089

2012-13 to 2013-14 1.07018 1.07117 1.00730 0.99336 1.00647 0.98738 0.99074 0.96970 0.98551 0.91447 0.94231 0.97368 0.89189

2013-14 to 2014-15 0.98282 1.10877 1.00332 1.00362 0.99666 1.03859 1.00639 1.00623 0.97500 0.96324 0.93165 1.01224 0.88803

2014-15 to 2015-16 1.0361 1.00344 0.98734 1.02318 0.98556 0.99329 1.02477 1.02540 1.00619 1.01282 0.98473 0.92278 0.89516

2015-16 to 2016-17 1.06507 1.00962 1.02265 1.03297 1.01014 0.96677 0.99690 0.94154 0.97152 0.89147 0.94561

2016-17 to 2017-18 1.02787 0.97428 0.97460 1.04114 1.02837 1.05686 1.05625 0.92236 0.98039 0.95765 0.93043

2017-18 to 2018-19 0.98551 1.01695 1.03300 1.02606 0.99696 1.05862 1.02215 0.90533 1.02020 0.92667 0.87755

2018-19 to 2019-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note: Conditional formatting by column.

-59 -58

Selecting Rate of Change for ProjectionsYear K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Birth to K K to 1

2011-12 to 2012-13 0.916388 0.96474 0.93636 1.02922 1.02532 0.96210 0.98925 1.01672 0.91549 0.97794 0.94526 0.95089

2012-13 to 2013-14 0.986885 1.00730 0.99336 1.00647 0.98738 0.99074 0.96970 0.98551 0.91447 0.94231 0.97368 0.89189

2013-14 to 2014-15 1.036066 1.00332 1.00362 0.99666 1.03859 1.00639 1.00623 0.97500 0.96324 0.93165 1.01224 0.88803

2014-15 to 2015-16 1.020979 0.98734 1.02318 0.98556 0.99329 1.02477 1.02540 1.00619 1.01282 0.98473 0.92278 0.89516

2015-16 to 2016-17 1 1.06507 1.00962 1.02265 1.03297 1.01014 0.96677 0.99690 0.94154 0.97152 0.89147 0.94561

2016-17 to 2017-18 1.041509 1.02787 0.97428 0.97460 1.04114 1.02837 1.05686 1.05625 0.92236 0.98039 0.95765 0.93043

2017-18 to 2018-19 0.961977 0.98551 1.01695 1.03300 1.02606 0.99696 1.05862 1.02215 0.90533 1.02020 0.92667 0.87755

2018-19 to 2019-20 AVG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Average, 3 year 1.00116 1.02615 1.00028 1.01009 1.03339 1.01182 1.02741 1.02510 0.92307 0.99070 0.92526 0.91786

Average, 5 year 1.01211 1.01382 1.00553 1.00250 1.02641 1.01332 1.02277 1.01130 0.94906 0.97770 0.94216 0.90736

Uptrending

Downtrending

Rate Selected 1.04363 1.0583 1.01382 1.00553 1.00250 1.03339 1.01332 1.05862 1.02510 0.90533 1.02020 0.94216 0.87755

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2019-20 303 302 256 274 301 323 319 347 315 292 312 285 244

2020-21 309 307 306 258 274 311 328 338 356 285 298 294 251

2021-22 315 313 311 307 259 283 315 347 346 322 291 281 258

2022-23 321 320 318 313 308 267 287 333 356 314 329 274 247

2023-24 328 326 324 319 314 319 271 304 342 322 320 310 240

Plus 30 in 5 years Minus 37 in 5 years

If 3 yr trend, choose

most recent year.

Note: Conditional formatting by entire matrix.

Selection of Rate of Change

Projected Enrollment

• Enrollments can be accurately projected several years into the future at a district level, but less accurately at a school level. Therefore, projections should be updated annually upon known fall enrollments in October.

• Past enrollment projections have significantly overstated future enrollments, in part because they could not anticipate the impact of the Great Recession.

• The survival/grade progression rates used in the projection methodology are a composite rating of birth rates, past trends of residential growth, and the ratio of public to other schools (nonpublic, charter, homeschooling)

• Age cohorts (each graduating class) can be increasing at certain grade levels while decreasing at others, resulting in bubbles progressing through the grade levels. This requires annual adjustment of staffing levels.

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

2019-20 303 302 256 274 301 323 319 347 315 292 312 285 244 3874

2020-21 309 307 306 258 274 311 328 338 356 285 298 294 251 3914

2021-22 315 313 311 307 259 283 315 347 346 322 291 281 258 3949

2022-23 321 320 318 313 308 267 287 333 356 314 329 274 247 3986

2023-24 328 326 324 319 314 319 271 304 342 322 320 310 240 4038

Change 2019-20 to

2023-24 25 24 68 46 Plus 30 in 5 years Minus 37 in 5 years

Total increase in K to 3 163

Total

Change 164

The Impact of Residential Growth

• Questions• How much residential growth can be expected?• Where might it occur?

• Process to understand current projects and future growth potential• Analyzed all subdivision and land development activity from 1985 to now from York

County Planning Commission• Spoke with municipal officials, developers, realtors• Visited each project-in January to see the extent of completion, again in April to see

ongoing construction activity• Calculated: remaining units approved for construction X demographic multipliers • Estimated build out/completion schedules based on builder, developer and realtor

input, realizing that there is much uncertainty in build out/completion schedules caused by market conditions, competition, supply, and mortgage rates

• Considered the impact of industrial and warehouse development on new job opportunities and demand for new housing

28

Total Population Change, 2000-2016

Planned Growth Areas and Wastewater Treatment

Planned Growth Areas and Wastewater TreatmentNotes: Growth is planned for center of District

Zoning in Northeastern School District

Notes: Large residential zoning districts exist around Conewago, Mt. Wolf, and Orendorf Elementary Schools

Subdivision and Land Development Activity 2011-2019Yellow dots are residential, purple squares are industrial, red squares are commercialTable at bottom shows all subdivision and land development by type of housing and proposed number of dwellings

Residential Growth-Number of Lots SubdividedSubdivision precedes building permit

Darker blue are most recent.

Dot size shows number of lots.

35

Conewago E. Manchester Manchester Mt. Wolf York Haven

1985 to 2004 1198 1784 6439 1 10

2005-2019 940 438 558 0 5

1198

1784

6439

1 10

940

438558

0 50

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Pro

po

sed

Dw

ellin

g U

nit

s

Dwelling Units in Subdivision and Land Development Plans1985-2004 and 2005-2019

1985 to 2004 2005-2019

36

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

York Haven 1 2 2 1 1 1 6

Mt. Wolf 1 2 1 1 1

Newberry 124 163 98 126 145 159 110 128 102 96 107 106 124 65 79 49 56 21 19 30 30 25 26 40 39 47 47

Manchester 57 161 154 165 103 128 171 253 255 195 212 232 265 192 289 138 79 46 31 35 32 32 31 29 26 26 24

East Manchester 52 40 51 44 35 58 53 72 57 48 43 107 130 172 101 39 73 35 30 15 18 21 12 35 36 37 28

Conewago 22 41 43 34 47 23 24 35 40 8 25 64 84 99 186 79 91 149 132 59 39 27 52 33 42 52 39

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Building Permits-1991 to 2017

Conewago East Manchester Manchester Newberry Mt. Wolf York Haven

Only a small part of Newberry Township is in the school district.

Manchester’s share was large in the early years, but Conewago has the largest share in the past decade.

Conclusions from Land Use Planning and Residential Subdivisions

• Some existing subdivisions precede County Growth Management Plans

• Growth Management Plans may be inconsistent with municipal zoning

• Most recent subdivisions, although smaller than the past, have been around Conewago

• Many industrial and commercial subdivisions, including the large warehouse projects will have several impacts:• more tax revenue eventually

• job creation and need for housing

• road improvements will be needed with possible construction during the school year

• strong working relationship with municipalities will be needed

37

The Impact of Residential Growth

• How much can be expected?

• Where might it occur?

• Process to understand current projects and future potential• Spoke with municipal officials, developers, realtors• Visited each project-in January to see the extent of completion, again now to

see ongoing construction activity• Calculated: remaining units approved for construction X demographic

multipliers • Uncertainty in build out/completion schedules caused by market conditions,

competition, supply, and mortgage rates

38

Students Expected by Type of Residence

Per

Household

Estimates

If 100

Dwelling

Units

Per

Grade

Level

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Single Family Units

All Single Family, Own or Rent

All Sizes 0.594 59.4 4.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

3 Bedroom 0.573 57.3 4.4 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

4 Bedroom 0.932 93.2 7.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Multi-Family Units

All Multi-Family, Own or Rent

All Sizes 0.191 19.1 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

2 Bedroom 0.262 26.2 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

2-4 Unit Structure, Own or Rent, All Sizes 0.263 26.3 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

5+ Unit Structure, Own or Rent, All Sizes 0.141 14.1 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Per Grade Level Per Year with 5

Year Buildout, if equally

distributedMultiplier Estimates for householders

that moved into the unit between 2008

and 2015 in Pennsylvania

School-Age Children

Demographic Multipliers for School-Age Children

39Source: Who Moves Into Pennsylvania Housing-2015 Residential Demographic Multipliers, Econsult Solutions November 2017

40

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

K 1 2 3

Demographic Multiplier-Sherman Oaks vs. Demographic Multiplier for Single Family Divided Equally by 13 Grade Levels

Sherman Oaks Demographic Multiplier/13 grades

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

K 1 2 3

Demographic Multiplier-Chestnut Valley Actual vs. Demographic Multiplier for Single Family Divided Equally by 13 grade levels

Actual Demographic Multiplier /13 grade

Active Residential Projects

42

First

Phase

Last

Phase Ap

pro

ved

Bu

ilt

Rem

ain

ing

to b

e B

uilt

Year

1

Year

2

Year

3

Year

4

Year

5

Bennett Run 2000 2016 Conewago 564 489 75 0.932 70 66 5 20 7 7 7

Hunter Creek 1998 2008 Conewago 131 121 10 0.932 9 9 1 3 1 1 1

Stonegate 2003 2015 Conewago 201 132 69 0.932 64 61 5 19 6 6 6

Hickory Ridge 2006 2011 Conewago 124 12 112 0.932 104 99 8 31 6 6 6 6 6

Locust Run 2005 2005 Conewago 153 64 89 0.573 51 48 4 15 5 5 5

Total 25 25 25 6 6

Rolling Meadows 2005 York Haven 227 150 77 0.932 72 68 5 21 7 7 7

Lexington Estates York Haven 180 48 132 0.932 123 117 9 36 7 7 7 7 7

Highlands 2011 York Haven 108 93 15 0.932 14 13 1 4 1 1 1

Total 16 16 16 7 7

Name of Development

Conewago Area

York Haven Area

Approval

Dates

Proposed Dwelling

Units

Dem

ogr

aph

ic

Mu

ltip

lier

Tota

l Sch

oo

l Age

Ch

ildre

n

Pu

blic

Sch

oo

l

Stu

den

ts (

95

%)

Per

Gra

de

Leve

l

Tota

l Stu

den

ts

K t

o 3

rd g

rad

e

Attendance

Area

Estimated Buildout Schedule in

the Future

Applying Objectives to Redrawing Boundary Lines• Locate all students on the GIS map by geocoding

• Display students with a different color dot by school attended

• Set a fixed number of classrooms at each grade level at each school (administrative and instructional advantages of set number)• Conewago 4 classrooms per grade level

• Mt. Wolf 3 classrooms per grade level

• Orendorf 5 classrooms per grade level

• York Haven 3 classrooms per grade level

• Adjust boundaries to determine the number of students at each grade level at each school, reserving excess capacity at schools with most anticipated residential growth (Conewago and York Haven)

• Determine if staffing adjustments will be necessary because of different counts of students by grade level (example: 56 in K, 43 in 1st, 56 in 2nd)

• Refine by moving boundaries slightly using objectives established

43

44

Proposed moves are dots with color different from area shading.

Data and objectives for each area will be explained later.

From York Haven to Orendorf

From Orendorfto Mt. Wolf

From Conewagoto Orendorf

Recommendation: Reassign Sherman Oaks from Orendorf to Mt. Wolf

• Objectives• Utilize Mt. Wolf capacity

• Available due to small class sizes in recent years

• Available due to a vacant classroom

• Assign students to closest school, now riding several minutes beyond the closest school (see map on following slide)

• Impacts• Provides more capacity at Orendorf, the most central school capable of

serving all areas

45

Drive Time Analysis-Mt. Wolf

Recommendation: Reassign Rural Students from York Haven to Orendorf• Objectives

• Reserve capacity in York Haven for expected residential growth

• Assign students to closest school

• Utilize available capacity at Orendorf available due to:• Orendorf has 24 full size classrooms, even with 5 classrooms per grade level, 4 remain

for other uses

47

Drive Time Analysis-Orendorf

Recommendation: Reassign Southwestern Conewago Township from Conewago to Orendorf

• Objectives• Reserve capacity for expected growth in Conewago

• Utilize Orendorf capacity

• Make transportation improvements to minimize added ride time

• Impacts• Students living on both sides of the Canal Road frontage will

remain at Conewago in order to reduce ride time from the southern area

• Transportation improvements will minimize ride time

49

Subdivision by location, year, and number of lots

Dark blue dots are most recent

Bennett Run-surrounding ConewagoElementary• 8 phases from 1999 to 2022/2024• 3-5 years to completion per exclusive

builder• All within walking zone with sidewalks, 81

walkers (if bused, cost of $85,000+/year)

52

Stonegate, 4 Phases

Phase 3, 47 units, 2015

Phase 4, 31 units, 2015

ConewagoElementary

Hunter Creek

Stonegate

53

Minimizing Travel Time

From the intersection with the traffic light,the distance/time to Conewago is 1.3 miles/2 minutes and toOrendorf it's 3.8 miles/8 minutes. Therefore, the difference for a bus traveling from the southwest corner of Northeastern York School District to either Orendorf rather than ConewagoElementary is 2.5 miles and 6 minutes.

Transportation Improvements • The committee reviewed transportation in detail looking at current and

future ride times especially for areas redistricted.

• Any redistricting will require changes to bus routes, with some riding longer than previously.

• Therefore, while buses are rerouted, we will try to minimize ride time. In general, we had the objective of assigning students to the closest school measured by drive time, not distance (straight line or on road network). Therefore, ride time for all students in total should be minimized.

• With residential growth, it is likely that another bus will be needed.

• Some attention to transportation practices can help• Riders with the long ride in the morning get the shorter ride in afternoon, if possible• Inform parents to have students ready so buses don’t have to wait long, too often

causing traffic congestion on busy roads

54

Implementation

• Communicate Plan• Committee recommendation presented to the School Board

• Separate presentations at schools where most students are affected?• At Orendorf for students in the southwestern area of Conewago

• At Mt. Wolf for students in Sherman Oaks

• Welcoming meetings set up by Principals for incoming students and families in late-May

• Webpost the presentation on the website

• Lists to be available at the schools or district office-addresses by school

• Transportation-Major effort to shorten the longer bus ride times

55

QuestionsDr. Sidle and Mr. Schoch

56