PLACE:

ROOM A ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 25 CHURCHILL AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION

DATE: TIME:

TUESDAY JANUARY 10, 2012 12:00 P.M. OPEN SESSION

AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING

Most Board of Education meetings are cablecast live on cable services CHANNEL 28 and webcast live on http://communitymediacenter.net/watch/schedules This meeting will not be broadcast. Board materials are available for review on the district web site at http://www.pausd.org/community/board/agenda.shtml or at the District Office, 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Meetings are also available on demand at
http://www.communitymediacenter.net/watch/pausd_webcast/PAUSDondemand.html Should you need special accommodations to participate in the meeting, please contact the Superintendents Office at 650.329.3737 or lbaranoff@pausd.org Community members wishing to address the Board are allotted THREE minutes per speaker. Should more than 20 people wish to address any one topic, the Board may elect to allot a shorter time per speaker. Materials presented at the Board meeting will be copied and provided to Board members after the meeting. Additional instructions are listed on the back page of this agenda.

STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS

A
Create an exceptional learning environment that engages, challenges, and supports all students so that they thrive and achieve their academic potential every year, while preparing them to pursue college and other post-secondary opportunities to be global citizens. Create an exceptional teaching environment by recruiting, developing, and retaining the most talented staff. Be prudent stewards of our resources through rigorous planning and budgeting and build further resources by enhancing public and private support for public education. Create a focused, transparent governance process that is a model of informed communication and decision making.

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AND LEARNING

B C D

STAFF RECRUITMENT AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET TRENDS AND INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNICATION

I. II.

A. Call to Order STUDY SESSION A. Voluntary Transfer Program Research Presentation

The Board will hear a presentation by Kendra Bischoff, Ph.D. of the results from her doctoral research about the Voluntary Transfer Program (VTP).

Information

B. PAUSD Enrollment Projections K-12

The Board will discuss an Analysis of Enrollment Projections report prepared for the District by DecisionInsite and next steps in the enrollment planning process.

Discussion

III.

ADJOURN

01.10.12

Page 1

BOARD OF EDUCATION PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent

Attachment: Date:

Discussion

01.10.12

Bob Golton, Facilities and Bond Program Manager Cathy Mak, Chief Business Official PAUSD Enrollment Projections K-12

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Budget Trends and Infrastructure BACKGROUND On March 8, 2011, the Board of Education conducted a study session to review enrollment and facilities planning for the elementary schools. This session included an overview of district values and guidelines, enrollment data and projections, district demographics, available funding and a brief overview of district facilities and opportunities to accommodate future growth. A subsequent study session was held on June 7, 2011. During the June study session, four recommendations from staff were discussed with the Board: 1. Suspend commitments of directed funds on elementary projects that do not increase capacity. 2. Give three year termination notice to the Garland tenant in June. 3. Direct staff to identify next sites for increased elementary capacity. 4. Direct staff to prepare an annual cyclical process that creates a calendar for (1) review of enrollment, (2) updating projections of future enrollment, (3) discussion of capital budgets, and (4) direction regarding the expenditure of bond funds to create capacity to address elementary enrollment challenges. Regarding these recommendations, the following has taken place. 1. A budget transfer of elementary school bond funds into the Elementary School Reserve was made on October 11, 2011. The reserve now stands on $33.3 million. This is in addition to the $21.9 million designated for Garland improvements. 2. On June 13, 2011, the Board authorized the termination of the Garland lease. 3. The timeline below provides an orderly process for identifying sites. 4. The following timeline was reviewed for the site identification.

TIMELINE The following timeline was presented to the Board on June 7, 2011. October, 2011 Review of current enrollment (completed at Sept. 28, 2011 Board meeting) December, 2011 Enrollment Projections for 2012-2013 and following years based on October enrollment information (the projections are dated December 26, 2011 and are presented at this meeting.) February, 2012 Discussion of funds available in capital budgets (to come) April, 2012 Direction of Bond funds to increase elementary school capacity (to come) Note: On November 1, 2011, the District purchased the property located at 525 San Antonio Road. PROPOSED ASSUMPTIONS AND VALUES The following list of assumptions and values was also reviewed at the meeting of June 7, 2011. This conversation about enrollment growth requires a set of planning assumptions and planning values. Planning Assumptions: (changes shown in italics) 1. Forty more classrooms will satisfy growth needs for the next five to eight years. 2. Kindergarten enrollment is the most reliable predictor of future K-12 enrollment. 3. We have $75 million to meet elementary facility needs in the next 8 years. This amount is now $55.3 million due to: the purchase of 525 San Antonio Road, the approval of the Duveneck schematic design and budget, and a more minor augmentation to the Fairmeadow budget at bid award. 4. Growth trends and location flexibility of district programs will guide planning 5. More capacity is needed where the ratio of student residents to existing neighborhood school classrooms is highest 6. 95% of current students live in housing built before 2000 7. Extra classrooms provide important flexibility 8. Empty seats are necessary to minimize overflow. Elementary Facilities Planning Values (changes made at the June 7, 2011 Board meeting shown in italics): 1. Neighborhoods matter: provide routine access to neighborhood schools 2. School size matters: keep schools at or below 4.5 strands 3. Commutes matter: use boundaries to minimize neighborhood school student travel across busy streets such as the El Camino Real and the Oregon Expressway. 4. Class size matters: maintain 22:1 for grades K-3 and 24:1 for grades 4-5 5. Peer Streaming matters: group neighborhood classmates together for middle and high school. 6. Special Education matters: ensure school stability and appropriate compliance 7. Money matters: get a good return on bond investments 8. Flexibility matters: plan a permanent extra classroom at all sites
2

9. Parity matters: plan comparable facilities, support staff space, play areas, and ventilation/classroom comfort. 10. Learning matters: minimize disruption to school and classroom operations 11. Contingencies matter: keep overflowed students within cluster when possible 12. Diversity matters: consider the benefits of heterogeneous school communities 13. Continuity matters: to the extent possible, do not require students to change schools 14. Opportunities matter: consider lease/purchase of strategic properties THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS This year, the District retained the services of DecisionInsite to do the projections. This firm services over 60 school districts, most of which are located in California. The firms services are highly computerized and automated. District staff began using their mapping software last year. However, they offer a wide range of school district planning tools, including boundary change analysis, residential development research, community mailing lists, demographic reports and of course, enrollment projections. Because of the degree of automation, there is an abundance of information available and available quickly. Staff was quite focused in their needs for the report for this year. We were interested in the enrollment projection, over multiple years K-12, as in the past. However, because of the Districts many conversations over the past on planning for additional elementary classrooms, we required student resident projections at least by elementary cluster, and better by individual elementary school attendance area. (Note: These are projections of numbers of students living in the attendance area of each school, not projections of the numbers of students attending each school.) As it turns out, the DI projections are based on an analysis by study blocks and since a study block can be a school, this works quite well for our purposes. Since they project K-12, we also have projections of student residents for each of the middle and high school attendance areas. PREDICTING FUTURE ENROLLMENT Last years demographer, Lapkoff and Gobalet (L&G), made projections consisting of three levels: Low, Medium and High. Table 1 tracks the performance of the projections for the past four years, in terms of predicting next year of enrollment. From this table, the best predictor of next years enrollment is the High projection for elementary enrollment and the Low projection for both middle school and high school enrollment. DecisionInsite (DI) projections consist of two levels, Conservative and Moderate. We matched year-old growth projections of L&G versus the current projections of DI for both next year (2012) and five years from now (2016). Tables 2a-c and Tables 3a-c show the result of those matches. In the end, the DI Conservative projections tend to fall between the Low and Medium L&G projections. The DI Moderate projections tend to fall between the Medium and High L&G projections in the short term and are higher than the L&G High Projections for the longer term. Our plan for now is therefore to use the DI Conservative projections when thinking about middle and high schools (perhaps with elevating the high school projection somewhat for next year), and use the Moderate projections when thinking about elementary schools. It should be noted that for both demographers, enrollment growth tends to level off after about the first five years. This is logical because they are analyzing existing development plans and known projects.
3

NOTES REGARDING THE ATTACHED TABLES The tables have been constructed using DI data. The projected (or actual) growth numbers and percentage growth for each year from the prior year are shown on the table. The aggregate fiveyear growth is also shown. Special Day Class (SDC) students are recorded separately, rather than being considered as being located in a school attendance area. The rationale is that the SDC students do not necessarily attend classes in their neighborhood schools. Regarding aggregate total enrollment for elementary, middle and high school students, a rough and easy rule of thumb would be to add 90 students to the elementary total, 70 students to the middle school total and 90 students to the high school total. District-wide projected enrollment is greater than the total of the projected numbers of students in each attendance area. In addition to SDC students being recorded separately, the students living outside the District (e.g. employee privilege students, VTP students) are not of course in the attendance area student totals. THE TABLES Tables 4 and Table 5 show the Conservative and Moderate projections district-wide. Regarding aggregate total enrollment for elementary, middle, and high school students, an easy rule of thumb would be to add 90 students to the elementary total, 70 students to the middle school total and 90 students to the high school total. Table 6 and Table 7 show the Conservative and Moderate projections by elementary cluster. There was great interest regarding the substantial change in the cluster growth projections between a 2009 projection and a 2011 projection. We now have another projection and one that is very different from each of the earlier projections. It projects an enrollment decline in the north cluster, an increase in the south cluster and an even greater increase in west cluster. Table 8 and Table 9 show the Conservative and Moderate projections by elementary school attendance area. These are the components that make up the cluster projections. Table 10 and Table 11 show the Conservative and Moderate projections by middle school attendance area. Table 12 and Table 13 show the Conservative and Moderate projections by high school attendance area. Attached to this document, you will find the DecisionInsite Analysis of Enrollment Projections report prepared for the District and also a draft of a powerpoint presentation to be presented at this meeting.

NEXT STEPS We are taking a step that has not been done in the past years. Our first priority enrollment period has started and ends on February 10. A substantial amount of enrollmentespecially Kindergarten enrollmenttakes place at this time. We will compare this years data to last year. It will give us another data point for projecting next falls enrollment by level, cluster and school. Our calendar calls for a discussion in February about available capital funds. This item will be placed on a Board meeting in February, in conformance with the timeline. We will also include some initial discussion about elementary and middle school growth. We have also started staff discussions regarding recommendations for increased school capacity. We will be bringing this to a Board meeting in April, as called for on the timeline. RECOMMENDATION The purpose of this item is to provide information and to seek comments and direction from the Board of Education. No action is required.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ANALYSIS OF ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

Fall 2012

Prepared for:

Palo Alto Unified School District

Prepared by:

7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA

Submitted: Jan 05, 2012

Page 1

Table of Contents
Page

Executive Summary.......... 3 Enrollment Projections - Fall 2012....... 3 District Enrollment Projections....... 4

Recent Changes in Enrollment....... 4 Kindergarten Impact......... 4 Live Birth Trends........... 4 Cohort Impact.......... 5 Incoming Out-of-District Transfer Impact....... 6 Key Variables in Projecting District Enrollment....... 6 Impact of Projected New Dwelling Units....... 7 Projected Occupancy......... 7 Students Generated........... 8 Student Generation Rates....... 8 Projected Enrollment Changes by Level....... 9 Conservative 5 Year District-wide Projection by Grade Level....... 9 Moderate 5 Year District-wide Projection by Grade Level....... 9 5 Year Enrollment Trends: Moderate and Conservative Compared....... 10 10 Year Enrollment Trends: Moderate and Conservative Compared....... 11 Elementary School Level....... 11 Middle School Level......... 12 High School Level........... 12 Summary of District Projections by Year....... 13 Conservative Projection......... 13 Moderate Projection........ 14 Grade Level Profile Comparison....... 14 Projecting School Enrollment....... 15 School Draw Impact........ 15 Intra-district Transfers.......... 15 Inter-district Transfers........ 15 Analyzing/Studying/Reviewing the Enrollment Projections....... 16 Appendix......... 7 1 Assumptions and Methodology....... 17 District Projections........... 17 Caveats on Projections and Methodology........ 19

Page 2

Palo Alto Unified School District

Executive Summary Enrollment Projections - Fall 2012
DecisionInsite is pleased to present this report of findings to the Board of Education and Executive Staff of Palo Alto Unified School District Both a Moderate and a Conservative projection have been generated for the district. Conservative projections are more suitable for staffing purposes; the Moderate projections more suitable for facilities planning purposes.

Kindergarten Enrollment
In general, Kindergarten enrollment over the past three years has been somewhat erratic. The data also show that the difference between the graduating cohort and the incoming cohort has been increasing. Note that both studies project a slight increase at the Kindergarten level in the ten year future.

Cohort Patterns
A typical student cohort ages from grade to grade relatively unchanged from the previous year. Historically, 3 cohorts show more than a 5% annual change.

New Housing Development

Approximately 800 new residential units are projected to be occupied over the next 10 years. Over the period of years during which these units will be occupied, the annual impact in any given year, based on the Moderate Study, is estimated in peak years to be 120 students.

District-wide Enrollment Projection

Both projections forecast a significant increase across the 10 year period based upon the historical enrollment trends and projected new residential development.

More Information
A richer and more comprehensive review of these two studies is contained in the Final Report accompanying this Executive Summary.

Respectfully Prepared and Submitted by:

The DecisionInsite Team

January 5, 2012

Page 3

Palo Alto Unified School District

District Enrollment Projections
Recent Changes in Enrollment
Familiarity with recent historical enrollment patterns and trends establishes the foundation for understanding projected enrollment. Percentages in the table below compare the current year enrollment to that of three years ago.
4 Year History Change
Kindergarten Gr K-5 Gr 6-8 Gr 9-12 District 102% 111% 107% 102% 107%

Figure: 1

Kindergarten Impact
Kindergarten enrollment is often the most significant driver of overall future district-wide enrollment. A trend at Kindergarten from year to year, or a trend in the difference between the district's graduating cohort in a given year and the Kindergarten cohort the subsequent year, will eventually be reflected in the total district enrollment count. These projections reflect changes in age eligibility for California Kindergarten. The result is a diminished Kindergarten cohort in years 2012-2014, with similar reductions in other grade levels as those cohorts age through the system. In general, Kindergarten enrollment over the past three years has been somewhat erratic. The data in the table below also show that the difference between the graduating cohort and the incoming cohort has been increasing.

Percent Change of Previous Year 2009

Kindergarten Grade 12 to K'tn Total K-12 96% 102% 102%

2010
108% 101% 102%

2011
98% 107% 102%

Figure: 2

Live Birth Trends

Live birth trends have an impact in large geographies, and on long range projections. However, in smaller areas of study, such as a school district, population mobility is often a mitigating if not an overriding factor, thereby reducing the effectiveness of live births as a predictor of enrollment. In projecting Kindergarten enrollment, live births are allowed to have a positive impact on the early projected years if there is an increasing trend in live births over several recent years. The average percent change in live births over the last five years in zip codes served by the district is 100%.

Page 4

The chart below displays in the years shown, cumulative live births in zip codes served by the district. (Note that zip codes are not typically conterminous with district boundaries.) The Kindergarten bar on the graph shows the number of Kindergarten students enrolled 5 years later.

Live Birth - Kindergarten Cohort Comparison

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2003 2004 2005
Live Births

2006

2007

2008

2009

Kindergarten

Source: DecisionInsite

Figure: 3 The Live Birth Enrollment Rate is the percentage of live births in zip codes served by the district that enroll as Kindergarten students five years later. The district's average Live Birth Enrollment Rate for the last 5 years is 101%.

Page 5

Cohort Impact
A typical student cohort ages from grade to grade relatively unchanged from the previous year. By contrast, the cohort matriculating from Kindergarten to Grade 1 is a common example of a cohort increase, typically attributable to students returning from a private school Kindergarten. In the following table, cohort changes with more than a 2% variance from static are marked accordingly. Those with more than a 5% changed are marked as 'Significant'.
Average Cohort Change Past Three Years Cohort
K>1 1>2 2>3 3>4 4>5 5>6 6>7 7>8 8>9 9 > 10 10 > 11 11 > 12

Percent
105% 102% 103% 104% 105% 99% 103% 102% 111% 100% 97% 97%

+/++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ -------

Significant
SSSS

SSSS

SSSS

Figure: 4

Page 6

Incoming Out-of-District Transfer Impact

The number of students served from outside the district boundaries can impact enrollment. It is a factor over which the district may have some control. For the past two years, the number of out-of-district students served annually has been approximately 750, and has been relatively stable.

Key Variables in Projecting District Enrollment

Both a Moderate and a Conservative projection have been generated for the district. The Conservative projections are more suitable for staffing purposes; the Moderate projections more suitable for facilities planning purposes. As a matter of standard practice, DecisionInsite does not typically include in the Enrollment Projections specialized schools or programs such as Home and Hospital Programs, Community Day Schools or Independent Study Programs. Our work is focused on projecting grade level enrollment for typical schools that are reported to the state. The variables that distinguish the Conservative projection from the Moderate are described in the table below.
Variable
Kindergarten Enrollment Change Cohort Change K Enrollment Change Cap K Enrollment Change Floor Dwelling Units Student Generation Rates Incoming Out-of-District Transfers

Conservative Study
3 Year History 3 Year History Constrains upward Kindergarten trends Allows downward Kindergarten trends Shifts developer(s) calendar Typical of recent history Assumes relatively stable rate

Moderate Study
4 Year History 4 Year History Allows increasing Kindergarten trends Limits downward Kindergarten trends Assumes developer(s) phasing calendar Typical of recent history Assumes relatively stable rate

Figure: 5

Page 7

Impact of Projected New Dwelling Units

Projected Occupancy
Approximately 800 new residential units are projected to be occupied over the next 10 years. The tables below show the mix of proposed units across the three dwelling unit types. The Moderate table summarizes the plans described by developers. The most recent residential research was completed in November 2011 by Dr. Jacquie Schriber. The Conservative table estimates a more likely scenario based on anticipated market conditions.

New Dwelling Units Projected to be Occupied by Year (Moderate)

Multi-family Attached Detached Totals: 2012 81 25 106 2013 89 50 18 157 2014 25 132 61 218 2015 132 42 174 2016 150 8 158 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Figure: 6
New Dwelling Units Projected to be Occupied by Year (Conservative)
Multi-family Attached Detached Totals: 2012 36 11 47 2013 52 23 8 83 2014 27 46 17 90 2015 34 64 23 121 2016 27 84 26 137 2017 17 91 33 141 2018 1 75 21 97 2019 75 5 80 2020 5 1 6 2021

Figure: 7 The graph below depicts visually the differences between the phasing projected in the Moderate and Conservative studies.

Projected Dwelling Unit Occupancy

250 200 Dwelling Units 150 100 50 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year
Moderate

2018

2019

2020

2021

Conservative

Figure: 8

Page 8

Students Generated
Over the period of years during which these units will be occupied, the impact, based on the Moderate Study, is shown in the table below. The "Annual" row projects the number of students new to the district from these units, in a given year. The "Aggregate" row projects the accumulated increase in students served by the district through the year indicated. The table in Figure 10 reflects the students generated using the Conservative estimate of projected Dwelling Units.
Students Generated by Residential Development (Moderate)
2012 Aggregate Annual 0 32 2013 90 59 2014 205 118 2015 309 112 2016 399 104 2017 416 36 2018 429 36 2019 439 36 2020 446 36 2021 452 36

Figure: 9
Conservative Students Generated as a Percent of Moderate
Aggregate 2012 38% 2013 49% 2014 42% 2015 46% 2016 53% 2017 70% 2018 82% 2019 91% 2020 93% 2021 94%

Figure: 10

Student Generation Rates

Moderate student generation rates are typical of students enrolled from existing developments of similar product type. Conservative student generation rates, if different, are designed to anticipate a diminution in family size. All projections are based on assumptions, and when read or shared are best prefaced with the phrase, "Based on these assumptions.", or "Based on these historical trends." Particularly for projections more than 5 years out, "Enrollment Trend" is a far more accurate descriptor.

Page 9

Projected Enrollment Changes by Level

The tables below display the five year district-wide projections by grade level, and allow a comparison to enrollment in the current year.

Conservative 5 Year District-wide Projection by Grade Level

Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Subtotals: Pct Chg: 2011 886 942 918 973 914 934 857 849 901 924 936 873 926 11833 2.5% 2012 806 916 958 945 997 937 908 867 856 996 917 905 842 11850 0.1% 2013 807 840 932 987 971 1024 895 921 876 950 989 887 873 11952 0.9% 2014 810 842 855 960 1013 996 995 906 932 979 942 958 856 12044 0.8% 2015 888 846 858 883 988 1040 965 1008 917 1041 974 913 924 12245 1.7% 2016 878 928 859 875 899 1005 999 974 1017 1024 1035 952 887 12332 0.7%

Figure: 11

Moderate 5 Year District-wide Projection by Grade Level

Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Subtotals: Pct Chg: 2011 886 942 918 973 914 934 857 849 901 924 936 873 926 11833 2.5% 2012 833 930 970 956 1008 945 926 881 871 1008 924 914 848 12014 1.5% 2013 845 881 958 1011 994 1046 922 958 909 977 1009 904 889 12302 2.4% 2014 860 899 912 1003 1054 1033 1040 959 994 1029 980 991 878 12632 2.7% 2015 948 913 928 954 1045 1093 1023 1077 991 1120 1033 959 961 13044 3.3% 2016 947 1004 944 958 986 1078 1071 1059 1105 1114 1122 1016 935 13340 2.3%

Figure: 12

Page 10

As the following graph illustrates, both projections forecast a significant increase across the 10 year period based upon the historical enrollment trends and projected new residential development.

District
16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Conservative

Moderate
Source: DecisionInsite

Figure: 13 The tables below compare the Conservative and Moderate enrollment projections by key grade level groupings. Projected changes in enrollment at Kindergarten or lower grade level groupings will eventually impact total district enrollment.

5 Year Enrollment Trends: Moderate and Conservative Compared

Change by Level Kindergarten Only Change Gr K-5 Change Gr 6-8 Change Gr 9-12 Change District Change Conservative 878 99% 5444 98% 2990 115% 3898 107% 12332 104% Moderate 947 107% 5917 106% 3235 124% 4187 114% 13339 113%

Figure: 14 Note that considered together; both studies project a slight increase at the Kindergarten level.

Page 11

The table below compares the ten year projections. In the ten year future at Kindergarten, both studies, viewed together, project a relatively stable trend.

10 Year Enrollment Trends: Moderate and Conservative Compared

Change by Level Kindergarten Only Change Gr K-5 Change Gr 6-8 Change Gr 9-12 Change District Change Conservative 819 92% 5390 97% 2707 104% 4194 115% 12291 104% Moderate 906 102% 6051 109% 3159 121% 4784 131% 13994 118%

Figure: 15 The graphs below compare the Conservative and Moderate enrollment projections by key grade level groupings. Elementary School Level The change projected by both studies over the ten year period represents a slight increase.

Elementary
7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
2011 2012 2013 2014
Conservative

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Moderate

Source: DecisionInsite

Figure: 16

Page 12

Middle School Level Over the ten year period, projected middle school enrollment shows a significant increase.

Middle School
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Conservative Moderate Source: DecisionInsite

Figure: 17 High School Level At the high school level, a significant increase is projected in the ten year future.
High School
6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Conservative Moderate

Source: DecisionInsite

Figure: 18

Page 13

Summary of District Projections by Year

The tables below present a more detailed annual view of projected changes by grade level clusters for both the Moderate and Conservative Projections. The Pct Previous Year row represents the percent of the previous years enrollment in each grade cluster that is projected in the subsequent year. The Five Year Change row represents the percent change projected over the enrollment five years prior. Conservative Projection
Change by Level Kindergarten Only Pct Previous Year Five Year Change Gr K-5 Pct Previous Year Five Year Change Gr 6-8 Pct Previous Year Five Year Change Gr 9-12 Pct Previous Year Five Year Change District Pct Previous Year Five Year Change 2011 886 98% 2012 806 91% 2013 807 100% 2014 810 100% 2015 888 110% 2016 878 99% 99% 5444 99% 98% 2990 103% 115% 3898 101% 107% 12332 101% 104% 2017 869 99% 2018 859 99% 2019 848 99% 2020 833 98% 2021 819 98% 93% 5390 98% 99% 2707 102% 91% 4194 97% 108% 12291 99% 100%

5567 104%

5559 100%

5561 100%

5476 98%

5503 100%

5413 99%

5451 101%

5485 101%

5485 100%

2607 102%

2631 101%

2692 102%

2833 105%

2890 102%

2965 99%

2882 97%

2756 96%

2646 96%

3659 100%

3660 100%

3699 101%

3735 101%

3852 103%

4089 105%

4200 103%

4280 102%

4336 101%

11833 103%

11850 100%

11952 101%

12044 101%

12245 102%

12467 101%

12533 101%

12521 100%

12467 100%

NOTE: Gray column most recent history year.

Figure: 19

Page 14

Moderate Projection
Change by Level Kindergarten Only Pct Previous Year Five Year Change Gr K-5 Pct Previous Year Five Year Change Gr 6-8 Pct Previous Year Five Year Change Gr 9-12 Pct Previous Year Five Year Change District Pct Previous Year Five Year Change 2011 886 98% 2012 833 94% 2013 845 101% 2014 860 102% 2015 948 110% 2016 947 100% 107% 5917 101% 106% 3235 105% 124% 4187 103% 114% 13339 102% 113% 2017 939 99% 2018 930 99% 2019 922 99% 2020 914 99% 2021 906 99% 96% 6051 99% 102% 3159 103% 98% 4784 99% 114% 13994 100% 105%

5567 104%

5642 101%

5735 102%

5761 100%

5881 102%

5927 100%

5994 101%

6058 101%

6105 101%

2607 102%

2678 103%

2789 104%

2993 107%

3091 103%

3240 100%

3202 99%

3120 97%

3060 98%

3659 100%

3694 101%

3779 102%

3878 103%

4073 105%

4436 106%

4606 104%

4733 103%

4853 103%

11833 103%

12014 102%

12303 102%

12632 103%

13045 103%

13603 102%

13802 101%

13911 101%

14018 101%

NOTE: Gray column most recent history year.

Figure: 20

Grade Level Profile Comparison

Another view of grade level enrollment can be seen in the chart below. The current grade level enrollment profile is compared with the projected grade level profile in the five and ten year future.
Grade Level Profiles
(Conservative Projection)
1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Grade Level
Current Five Year Ten Year

Figure: 21

Page 15

Projecting School Enrollment

School projections are primarily a function of the proportion of district students who enroll at a given school, modified by intra-district transfers within a given school level that may occur subsequent to initial enrollment, and augmented by inter-district transfer students. School Draw Impact A draw rate is the percentage of students who enroll at a particular grade level in a given school from a specified geographic area. Open enrollment among district schools is projected using this concept. Except for changes in school boundaries or other changes in policy, historical draw rates from a given geographic area to a specific school (including out-of-district students) are assumed in the projections. Intra-district Transfers Transfers within the district are incorporated into the projections in order to anticipate the movement of students from one district school to another within the same level, e.g., transfer from a neighborhood school to a special school. Recent historical transfer patterns are typically assumed in the projections.

Inter-district Transfers Transfers into the district by out-of-district students, sometimes referred to as permit students, are an integral part of the district and school projections. Recent historical transfer patterns are typically assumed in the projections.

Page 16

Analyzing/Studying/Reviewing the Enrollment Projections

The projections of district and school enrollment are based on a complex mix of historical data, the projection of recent trends, and specific assumptions regarding the future. At DecisionInsite, we strongly encourage our clients to actively engage with the data with the aim of better understanding, further refining, and using the results to inform decisions about to be made. We believe increased effectiveness for both the district and DecisionInsite comes with increased and welcome dialogue.

Graphs or tables may be copied from the PDF version of this document using the Snapshot Tool inside PDF Reader. Please do not hesitate to contact DecisionInsite regarding any questions or suggestions that may arise regarding these studies. Respectfully Prepared and Submitted by:

The DecisionInsite Team

January 5, 2012

Page 17

Appendix
Assumptions and Methodology
Three major factors drive district-wide student enrollment projections. These include: 1. recent kindergarten enrollment trends, modified by live birth data, if applicable, 2. changes in the grade level cohorts of students served as they age through, and 3. changes in the number of residential units within the district District-wide projections are disaggregated to school projections based on the historical patterns of: 1. the rates at which each school draws enrollment from various sections of the district, and 2. the pattern of transfers within the district at a given level from one school to another.

District Projections
Studyblocks For demographic analysis and enrollment projections, the district is divided into studyblocks. A studyblock is a custom unit of geography created by DecisionInsite for the purpose of generating reliable projections. They are based either upon Census Bureau blockgroups or census tracts or some combination thereof. A studyblock serves as the basis for the analysis of students served by the district and by schools. The objective is to do analysis with a small enough geographic unit to sense small area changes but large enough to allow for reliable projection. Studyblocks typically encompass 5001000 students. Kindergarten Enrollment The projected Kindergarten enrollment is a key variable in projecting K12 enrollment. The base Kindergarten projection is determined by the trend of Kindergartners served in each studyblock in the previous 3 or 4 years. Depending on the circumstances, a growth trend in Kindergarten enrollment may be capped. Steep straight-line trends are mathematically moderated to avoid unrealistic results.

Students in the Projections Enrollment projections are limited to typical K12 students. SDC students are projected as a stable percentage of the typical population unless all SDC students are mainstreamed. Excluded from the projections are students enrolled in Pre-Kindergarten, Adult High School, Home School, Adult Ed, Independent Study programs and other special schools. Attendance Boundaries Attendance boundaries are assumed to remain constant, unless otherwise noted by the district. Closed Schools Opportunities for open enrollment (intra-district) are assumed to remain unchanged, unless otherwise noted by the district.

Page 18

Inter-district Enrollment Students enrolled from other school districts are treated in aggregate in separate studyblocks. Students in Kindergarten, grade 1, and the initial grade at each level, are projected only to the extent they exist in recent years. Students enrolled in other grade level cohorts are aged through to the highest grade at each level. These defaults may be modified at district request. Cohort Percent Change Cohort percentage changes are calculated in order to assure sensitivity to perennial changes in students served by the district as they age from one grade level to the next. If every cohort were stable as it ages, the cohort percent change, from one grade to the next in each studyblock, would be calculated as 100%. For each studyblock, a cohort weighted average percent change over a defined number of years is calculated based on the change in the enrollment served as it ages from the previous grade level. Average cohort percentages above 100% might, for example, reflect students returning from private schools. Cohort percentages below 100% might reflect drop-outs. Growth studyblocks are those showing unusually high increases in elementary grade enrollment and/or cohort percent change in recent yearsdue, typically, to new housing development. Once growth studyblocks are identified, their default cohort percent change rate is set to 100% so as not to over-project new residential growth. By default, growth is not predicted to continue unless new occupied dwelling units are projected. Dwelling Unit Impact The predicted impact of new dwelling units on school enrollment is based on three factors: 1) new dwelling units, 2) the student generation rate for each unit type, and 3) the grade level distribution of newly generated students. 1. Dwelling Units New dwelling units are categorized into 3 housing types: Single Family Detached, Single Family Attached, and Multifamily. Developers and builders are contacted for information relative to their plans for occupancy of new dwelling units. 2. Student Generation Student generation rates are determined for each product type for each level: elementary, middle school and high school. Student generation rates are based on similar products types where such exist; otherwise, a default generation rate is used. 3. Grade Level Distribution For each level, students generated by new dwelling units are distributed across grade levels. These percentages are based on historical patterns where they exist; otherwise, default percentages are used.

Page 19

Caveats on Projections and Methodology On Projections

Enrollment projections are based upon two critical factors: the student and school data from the school district and the mathematical formulas that are applied to those data. Projections fundamentally look at recent history as reflected in the student data and assume that past patterns and trends will continue into the future. The calculations assume that the historical data provided is at one year intervals based on enrollment at the beginning of each school year. DecisionInsite takes great care in preparing a districts projections. A range of unpredicted anomalies, however, can cause reality to vary from the historical patterns. These include, but are not limited to, rapid changes in the economy, mortgage interest rates, the housing market, the job market, residential development plans, rental rates, etc. Anomalous changes that occur between the last set of student data and the first projection are not reflected in the projections unless the district works with DecisionInsite to amend the projections. In the projections, calculations are mathematically precise. Each result is rounded to a whole number for ease of reading. This rounding sometimes results in the displayed whole numbers in a column not adding exactly to the displayed total of the column. This phenomenon, which is a result of rounding and not of any inaccuracy in the calculations, occurs both in the enrollment projections and in the community demographics.

On Student Data
DecisionInsite obtains historical student data files from the district. To the extent that the student data files are internally inconsistent from year to year, or the count of students in the files does not reflect the count of actual enrollees, errors are introduced to the projection calculations. For optimum results, the student data files must also consistently capture the same categories of students annually. The calculations assume that the historical data provided is at one year intervals based on enrollment at the beginning of each school year. It is important that the student files obtained from the district are close to a common date each year, typically near the beginning of the school year. The snapshot of historical data near the beginning of the school year is best suited to our goal of projecting enrollment for the beginning of subsequent school years. To the extent the historical student data provided is not at one year intervals, or is not at a common date near the beginning of the school year, projections may reflect monthly fluctuations in enrollment that will diminish the accuracy of the projections.

Page 20

1/6/2012

Palo Alto Unified School District

Enrollment Forecast Report 2012
Presented by

DecisionInsite
1

DecisionInsite
We are enrollment impact specialists We forecast enrollment by geography and by school We assist districts in managing the impact of enrollment on: Budgeting Staffing Facilities Planning
2

1/6/2012

The DecisionInsite Design and Management Team

Mike Regele Over 20 years experience designing and delivering geo-demographic information solutions to religious and non-profit organizations. Strategic planning consultant Served nearly 11 years as a school board member Dean Waldfogel, PhD Over 30 years of educational leadership Former Superintendent of Irvine Unified School District Mathematics background; designs enrollment projection engines Joined forces to integrate geo-demographics and enrollment projections to create a single solution.
3

DecisionInsites Key Services

Professionally Developed Enrollment Projections
Two ten-year district-wide and school-by-grade enrollment projections
Conservative Moderate

Addresses intra and inter-district transfers

The DI System: Map-driven, web-based, easy-to-learn

Reports on historical patterns & projected trends Easy to create student plots Easy to query underlying data; point and click Easy export of charts, maps & reports to PowerPoint, Excel or Word Access anywhere via web, no technical training required Includes full array of community demographics updated annually

1/6/2012

Presentation
Population projections within PAUSD PAUSD Historical Enrollment Analysis PAUSD Enrollment Forecast

PAUSD
Selected Community Demographic Trends

1/6/2012

Trends: Population, Households and Families

Findings: Little population growth 8% over 10 years < 1% per year Family households nearly 9% over 10 years
2000, 2010 Census with Current Year Estimate and 5 Year Projection

Projected Population Change: 5 Years

1/6/2012

Projected Population Change: 10 Years

PAUSD
Enrollment History

10

1/6/2012

Recent Historical Changes

4 Year History Change
Kindergarten Gr K-5 Gr 6-8 Gr 9-12 District 102% 111% 107% 102% 107%

11

Kindergarten Impact

Percent Change of Previous Year 2009

Kindergarten Grade 12 to K'tn Total K-12 96% 102% 102%

2010
108% 101% 102%

2011
98% 107% 102%

12

1/6/2012

Sample Studyblock Variability

Studyblock A B C Grade K K K 2008 56 84 80 2009 59 57 76 2010 44 93 82 2011 66 75 63

13

Kindergarten Enrollment by Ethnicity

14

1/6/2012

Students New to the District

2011 Grades 1-12

15

Live Birth
Not a significant correlation between Live Births and Kindergarten enrollment 5 years later.

Live Birth Enrollment Rate ~101%

16

1/6/2012

Cohort Aging
Average Cohort Change Past Three Years Cohort
K>1 1>2 2>3 3>4 4>5 5>6 6>7 7>8 8>9 9 > 10 10 > 11 11 > 12

Percent
105% 102% 103% 104% 105% 99% 103% 102% 111% 100% 97% 97%

+/++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ -------

Significant
SSSS

SSSS

SSSS

17

Grade Level Profiles

Grade Level Profiles (Conservative Projection)
1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Grade Level Current Five Year Ten Year

18

1/6/2012

Out of District
Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total 2008 75 78 64 62 56 55 67 51 37 42 39 38 52 716 2009 75 71 78 59 55 55 52 62 48 37 37 37 48 714 2010 84 70 68 77 58 54 52 49 62 52 36 34 32 728 2011 84 78 72 63 74 57 48 49 53 61 49 36 39 763

Out of District enrollment has been relatively stable

nic SDC
19

12077 students plotted, 810 (6.7%) out of district

PAUSD Student Enrollment Reach

20

10

1/6/2012

Summary of Historical Enrollment Trends

Kindergarten year-to-year changes in several elementary attendance areas are unusually erratic. The California change is K age-eligibility creates a drag on upward enrollment trends The significant cohort change at grades 1 and 9 are common. The change at grade 5 is atypical. Out of District enrollment is relatively stable at ~6%.

21

PAUSD
Student Enrollment Forecast

22

11

1/6/2012

Method
Primary factors that influence calculations
Kindergarten Aging of grade cohorts through system Impact of new residential development Inter-district transfers

Other factors that can influence

Private school enrollment Housing market; foreclosures Anomalous events such as fires, business closures
23

Key Assumptions
Two projections completed each year
Conservative suitable for staffing Moderate suitable for facilities planning
Variable
Kindergarten Enrollment Change Cohort Change K Enrollment Change Cap K Enrollment Change Floor Dwelling Units Student Generation Rates

Conservative Study
3 Year History 3 Year History Constrains upward Kindergarten trends Allows downward Kindergarten trends Shifts developer(s) calendar Typical of recent history

Moderate Study
4 Year History 4 Year History Allows increasing Kindergarten trends Limits downward Kindergarten trends Assumes developer(s) phasing calendar Typical of recent history Assumes relatively stable rate

Incoming Out-of-District Transfers Assumes relatively stable rate

24

12

1/6/2012

Moderate 5 Year Projection

Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Subtotals: Pct Chg: 2011 886 942 918 973 914 934 857 849 901 924 936 873 926 11833 2.5% 2012 833 930 970 956 1008 945 926 881 871 1008 924 914 848 12014 1.5% 2013 845 881 958 1011 994 1046 922 958 909 977 1009 904 889 12302 2.4% 2014 860 899 912 1003 1054 1033 1040 959 994 1029 980 991 878 12632 2.7% 2015 948 913 928 954 1045 1093 1023 1077 991 1120 1033 959 961 13044 3.3% 2016 947 1004 944 958 986 1078 1071 1059 1105 1114 1122 1016 935 13340 2.3%

25

Cohort Change Array

Grade PlAlt12Mod 2009 2010 K 96% 108% 1 106% 104% 2 100% 101% 3 100% 105% 4 105% 104% 5 105% 104% 6 98% 99% 7 103% 103% 8 103% 103% 9 112% 112% 10 100% 100% 11 98% 98% 12 98% 97% 2011 Average 1:2:3 Avg 101% 101% 98% 105% 105% 104% 102% 103% 105% 103% 104% 105% 104% 104% 105% 105% 105% 105% 99% 99% 99% 103% 103% 102% 102% 102% 101% 111% 111% 110% 100% 100% 99% 97% 97% 96% 97% 97% 97% 102% 102% 2012 94% 105% 103% 104% 104% 103% 99% 103% 103% 112% 100% 98% 97% 2013 101% 106% 103% 104% 104% 104% 98% 103% 103% 112% 100% 98% 97% 2014 102% 106% 104% 105% 104% 104% 99% 104% 104% 113% 100% 98% 97% 2015 110% 106% 103% 105% 104% 104% 99% 104% 103% 113% 100% 98% 97%

26

13

1/6/2012

Geographic Area Enrollment

NORTH CLUSTER Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 K-5 Total Increase % Increase 2008 269 231 275 229 247 267 1518 2009 201 292 235 281 234 257 1500 -18 -1.19% 2010 2011 266 223 221 280 282 228 245 298 287 254 250 299 1551 1582 51 31 3.40% 2.00% 2012 2013 218 220 242 237 281 243 238 293 308 246 266 322 1553 1561 -29 8 -1.83% 0.52% 5-year growth = 2014 2015 2016 222 242 240 239 240 261 238 240 243 254 248 247 303 262 253 258 317 269 1514 1549 1513 -47 35 -36 -3.01% 2.31% -2.32% -69 -4.4%

27

Geographic Area Enrollment

WEST CLUSTER 2008 K 1 2 3 4 5 K-5 Total Increase % Increase 249 249 276 233 216 253 1476 2009 270 269 236 264 244 239 1522 46 3.12% 2010 246 279 269 253 283 255 1585 63 2011 277 254 285 281 272 294 1663 78 2012 261 291 259 297 298 283 1689 26 2013 266 273 294 271 316 310 1730 41 2014 277 286 285 314 293 335 1790 60 2015 312 300 298 304 339 310 1863 73 289 2016 316 333 310 314 322 357 1952 89 4.78% 17.4%

4.14% 4.92%

1.56% 2.43%

3.47% 4.08%

5-year growth =

28

14

1/6/2012

Geographic Area Enrollment

SOUTH CLUSTER Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 K-5 Total Increase % Increase 2008 273 274 246 269 283 305 1650 2009 289 288 285 258 296 288 1704 54 3.27% 2010 2011 309 302 302 330 308 333 299 331 265 314 306 284 1789 1894 85 105 4.99% 5.87% 2012 2013 2014 2015 279 285 288 314 323 302 305 306 351 346 321 323 352 374 365 338 343 368 386 377 322 354 376 395 1970 2029 2041 2053 76 59 12 12 4.01% 2.99% 0.59% 0.59% 5-year growth = 142 2016 310 334 324 333 349 386 2036 -17 -0.83% 7.5%

29

Middle School Enrollment

PlAlt12Cnsv Grade 6 7 8 SDC 6-8 Total Increase % Increase 2008 798 818 813 76 2505 2009 859 821 842 71 2593 88 3.5% 2010 833 889 842 71 2635 42 1.6% 2011 857 849 901 71 2678 43 1.6% 2012 908 867 856 73 2704 26 1.0% 2013 895 920 876 75 2766 62 2.3% 2014 994 906 932 79 2911 145 5.2% 2015 964 1008 917 79 2968 57 2.0% 2016 999 973 1018 82 3072 104 3.5%

5-Year growth =

394 14.7%

Inc. Out of District 30

15

1/6/2012

Middle School Enrollment

PlAlt12Mod Grade 6 7 8 SDC 6-8 Total Increase % Increase 2008 798 818 813 76 2505 2009 859 821 842 71 2593 88 3.5% 2010 833 889 842 71 2635 42 1.6% 2011 857 849 901 71 2678 43 1.6% 2012 926 881 872 74 2753 75 2.8% 2013 922 959 909 78 2868 115 4.2% 2014 1040 959 994 86 3079 211 7.4% 2015 1022 1076 991 88 3177 98 3.2% 2016 1071 1059 1105 92 3327 150 4.7%

5-Year growth =

649 24.2%

Inc. Out of District 31

High School Enrollment

PlAlt12Cnsv

Grade 9 10 11 12 SDC 9-12 Total Increase % Increase

2008 974 870 915 816 84 3659

2009 912 977 851 898 91 3729 70 1.9%

2010 945 911 959 826 97 3738 9 0.2%

2011 924 936 873 926 90 3749 11 0.3%

2012 2013 996 949 917 988 905 887 842 873 90 91 3750 3788 1 38 0.0% 1.0% 5-Year growth =

2014 980 942 958 856 93 3829 41 1.1%

2015 1041 973 914 924 96 3948 119 3.1% 247

2016 1024 1035 952 887 98 3996 48 1.2% 6.6%

Inc. Out of District 32

16

1/6/2012

High School Enrollment

PlAlt12Mod Grade 9 10 11 12 SDC 9-12 Total Increase % Increase 2008 974 870 915 816 84 3659 2009 912 977 851 898 91 3729 70 1.9% 2010 945 911 959 826 97 3738 9 0.2% 2011 924 936 873 926 90 3749 11 0.3% 2012 1008 924 914 848 92 3786 37 1.0% 2013 977 1009 903 888 94 3871 85 2.2% 2014 1029 979 991 878 99 3976 105 2.7% 2015 1120 1032 960 961 104 4177 201 5.1% 2016 1114 1122 1016 935 108 4295 118 2.8%

5-Year growth =

546 14.6%

Inc. Out of District 33

Transition K Projection
(based on 100% participation)
(PlAlt12Mod) Grade TranK K 2008 0 866 2009 0 835 2010 0 905 2011 0 886 2012 75 833 2013 153 845 2014 235 860 2015 237 948 2016 237 947

34

17

1/6/2012

New Dwelling Units

New Dwelling Units Projected to be Occupied by Year (Moderate)
2012 Multi-family Attached Detached Totals: 106 81 25 2013 89 50 18 157 2014 25 132 61 218 132 42 174 150 8 158 0 0 0 0 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

New Dwelling Units Projected to be Occupied by Year (Conservative)

2012 Multi-family Attached Detached Totals: 47 36 11 2013 52 23 8 83 2014 27 46 17 90 2015 34 64 23 121 2016 27 84 26 137 2017 17 91 33 141 2018 1 75 21 97 75 5 80 5 1 6 2019 2020 2021

The Conservative table estimates a more likely scenario based on anticipated market conditions
35

Projected Dwelling Unit Occupancy

36

18

1/6/2012

Students Generated by New Housing

Students Generated by Residential Development (Moderate)

2012 Aggregate Annual 0 32 2013 90 59 2014 205 118 2015 309 112 2016 399 104 2017 416 36 2018 429 36 2019 439 36 2020 446 36 2021 452 36

Conservative Students Generated as a Percent of Moderate

2012 Aggregate 38% 2013 49% 2014 42% 2015 46% 2016 53% 2017 70% 2018 82% 2019 91% 2020 93% 2021 94%

37

District-wide Projections

38

19

1/6/2012

Conservative and Moderate Compared 5 Year

Change by Level Kindergarten Only Change Gr K-5 Change Gr 6-8 Change Gr 9-12 Change District Change Conservative 819 92% 5390 97% 2707 104% 4194 115% 12291 104% Moderate 906 102% 6051 109% 3159 121% 4784 131% 13994 118%

39

Elementary Level

40

20

1/6/2012

Middle School Level

41

High School Level

42

21

1/6/2012

General Conclusions
Community population relatively stable Erratic Kindergarten history creates wider than usual difference between the out year projections in the two studies. Some, but relatively minor impact from new housing. Out of district enrollment is stable. Projected annual enrollment change is similar to past history: ~2-3%

43

PAUSDEnrollmentProjectionsK12

January10,2012
PaloAltoUnifiedSchoolDistrict

22

1/6/2012

NextSteps
Needtomakedecisionsonnextstepsfor addingelementarycapacity Needtodevelopmiddleschoolenrollment decisions February14Boardmeeting
Budgetforelementaryconstruction Discussionofelementaryandmiddleschool topicsshownabove
January10,2012 PaloAltoUnifiedSchoolDistrict

23