Thursday, September 16, 2010

Follow-up Crappy! Chart!

This chart is hard to read, so I've also posted the slide on dropbox.

Like or don't like capacity management and the NSAP, preliminary research indicates it's not really working out as planned. Or, you know, "working."
The 17 schools have 9,944-ish students at them (and look, the current numbers at these schools are shifting, so take it as a ballpark), and they were under-budgeted by 700+? That's closing in on a 10% miss, which seems... high. Although, let's keep in mind that for the district, coming within 10% of the target has, in the past, counted as "meeting" the target. Dude, I'm pretty sure that we're not going to tell district kids that coming within 10% of an "A" counts as an "A" (because... it's a "B"), so why does district management get grade inflation? Oh, right. It's like the joke about dogs licking their balls. Because they can.
Anyhoodles, I seem to remember something about the APP split being because Lowell was sooooo overcrowded. But, hmmm. In 2008-09, Lowell had 528 kids enrolled, and now it has 542. Yeah, splitting up a program really fixed that bit of overcrowding. Brills, daaaahling, absolutely brilliant.

7 comments:

Dorothy Neville said...

Eckstein? Rumor has it they have 500 6th graders.

Meg said...

Eckstein's office said they have "over 1200." They sounded kind of harried, so I let the precise number slide rather than get pushy with their front office. And numbers are still shifting.

They were budgeted for 1134, and last year had 1,148. The building has a functional capacity of 1,205.

zb said...

Hi There:

Thanks for the quantitative analysis (this time around, and in other documents you've prepared). I like fixing my opinions on numbers so it's nice to have someone who likes to churn the numbers and make them available to others.

746 (sum(unsigned delta)) is an 8% mis-prediction, and doesn't seem all that high to me. Do you know what it might be for other school systems that have guaranteed neighborhood assignments?

Where did you get the data? Is it available for others schools? I'm looking forward to hearing how enrollment played out in all the schools.

zb said...

Ah, I saw you got the data the hard way (telephone, what's a telephone?). Now I have to thank you even more for churning the data, since you actually collected it too. Super work.

Meg said...

zb - I think the margin of error is debatable, and I can see your point that in year 1, 8% might not be out of control. BUT. I would counter by saying that there should, in an even marginally well-executed plan, be slight alleviation in most over-crowded schools, instead of dramatic increases in overcrowding. That there are only a few instances of alleviation says (to me, anyway) that there is an implementation issue.

dan dempsey said...

Speaking of missing the target.

Try the time frame that Judge Inveen set for deciding if the setting of the NSAP boundaries was an "Arbitrary and Capricious decision". Still no decision as of 9/27/10.

She took a leave but is now back.
The waiting continues.

nacmom said...

Sadly I have seen district charts that list at least a few of these schools with higher functional capacities. I will try to find and send, but View Ridge for example is listed at 570 and Bryant's principal said this year their functional capacity was upped to high 500's. The exact number I forget.

regardless, I assume the 10/1 counts will have to be distributed? Somewhere?