Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is an accuracy rate in the 90's for the vast majority of schools "unapologectically" inaccurate? Surely, you don't expect 100%?

Don't be dense. A 5-year old can project out 9 months. The School Board makes its decisions based on the out-year projections, and those fall considerably short of anything approaching reliable.

With the hi mobility rates of the county it makes it that much more difficult. I think they do a credible job. Projections are never 100% accurate, and expecting them to do so is ridiculous. The high 90%s are reliable enough. They show trends. Just accept the fact that Langley and Cooper will have to expand their borders and Cooper will have to accept is own AAP students that currently already live within its borders.

The larger challenge is the 5 year projections especially over the past 8 years. With the onset of the recession in 2007 the out migration patterns which we had experienced suddenly reversed leading to significant discrepancies between projections made during one cycle and the ultimate enrollment during another.

. . .

The following chart overlays the 2, 3 and 4 year projections over the actual enrollment. There is little question that projections made closer to the target school year will be more accurate because of increased data and information. This chart also displays the point in which we had sufficient information to increase our projection accuracy.

. . .

In addition to the difficulty we experience with projecting general education, AAP and SPED students, the annual transfer of students into and within the system creates an additional level of complexity. The dashboard identifies in specific detail the number of students who are moving from school to school in various categories such as AA and SPED but there is a general category called Transfers.

. . .

The large quantity of students who attend a school which is not their base school is nearly 10% of the total population. It can be very difficult to anticipate when or how many students attend a different school which impacts our ability to accurately predict on a school by school basis. As evidenced by the first chart, the Planning Office only missed by 2 students out of 151,000 in our General Membership.

We are hopeful that the planning software currently under development will assist us in more accurately projecting on a school by school basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is an accuracy rate in the 90's for the vast majority of schools "unapologectically" inaccurate? Surely, you don't expect 100%?

Don't be dense. A 5-year old can project out 9 months. The School Board makes its decisions based on the out-year projections, and those fall considerably short of anything approaching reliable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is an accuracy rate in the 90's for the vast majority of schools "unapologectically" inaccurate? Surely, you don't expect 100%?

Don't be dense. A 5-year old can project out 9 months. The School Board makes its decisions based on the out-year projections, and those fall considerably short of anything approaching reliable.

Anonymous wrote:How is an accuracy rate in the 90's for the vast majority of schools "unapologectically" inaccurate? Surely, you don't expect 100%?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The actual enrollment figures underscore how unreliable some of their projections have been (for example, there are schools where the fall 2014 enrollments varied greatly from what FCPS was projecting in the spring of 2014). It ought to make the School Board members pause before taking actions based on out-year projections that are likely to be even more inaccurate.

ITA and I so hope you are correct.

They are incredibly inaccurate and unapologetically so, but they are the only source for projections. There is no penalty for their errors, and the School Board knows there are capacity issues now. They will be compelled to act, and the only numbers to guide their decisions will come from facilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the CIP and read each Cluster section. There is a table outlining the current capacity, current 2013 enrollment, and the Accuracy of the 1 year projection for 2013.

http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/cip/cipbook2015-19.pdf

This is too confusing to me. Can you break it down? What page is the table outlining the current capacity, current 2013 enrollment and the accuracy of the one year projection. We don't have clusters any more, we have regions. I don't know which schools were in which cluster.

page 38 for Cluster 1
page 42 for Cluster 2
Page 46 for Cluster 3
page 50 for Cluster 4
page 54 for Cluster 5
page 58 for Cluster 6
page 62 for Cluster 7
page 66 for Cluster 8

Alphabetical list of schools and what cluster they were in as of December 2013 when the CIP was presented starts on page 73

Anonymous wrote:

The actual enrollment figures underscore how unreliable some of their projections have been (for example, there are schools where the fall 2014 enrollments varied greatly from what FCPS was projecting in the spring of 2014). It ought to make the School Board members pause before taking actions based on out-year projections that are likely to be even more inaccurate.

ITA and I so hope you are correct.

Anonymous wrote:Where would the Oakton and Madison kids go then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the CIP and read each Cluster section. There is a table outlining the current capacity, current 2013 enrollment, and the Accuracy of the 1 year projection for 2013.

http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/cip/cipbook2015-19.pdf

This is too confusing to me. Can you break it down? What page is the table outlining the current capacity, current 2013 enrollment and the accuracy of the one year projection. We don't have clusters any more, we have regions. I don't know which schools were in which cluster.