Operations Update Nita Mensia-Joseph, Chief Operations Officer - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Operations Update

Nita Mensia-Joseph, Chief Operations Officer Atonja Allen, Senior Planning Administrator

• Dr. Calvin Frye, Director of Transportation

Presented to the School Board * November 12, 2019

Overview

2

• School capacities and enrollment projection accuracy
• Transportation updates

○ Understanding the challenges and recommendations to resolve the issues ○ Answers to questions from the last Board meeting

CAPACITY UPDATE

2019 2017 2015 2016 2018

In-House Excel Worksheets

Building Capacity = total # of classrooms x 23 (based on “CorelDraw” building diagrams) Functional Capacity removed regular classrooms for SPED, PreK and ESOL Utilization Factors applied at Secondary level

In-House Excel Worksheets (ES & MS) and VDOE Capacity Worksheets (HS)

Building Capacity = total # of classrooms x 23 (based

• n building diagrams)

Functional Capacity removed regular classrooms for SPED, PreK and ESOL Utilization Factors (various)applied at Secondary level

Evolution of CAPACITY EVALUATION

VDOE Capacity Worksheets

Design Capacity for HS adjusted to remove gym capacity based on TDHS example (room sq.ft review compared to VDOE Appendix D matrix) Annual Program Capacity with School Inventory worksheets to document room-by-room use year-over-year. (Measure for utilization monitoring)

VDOE Capacity Worksheets (w/SOQ PTR)

Design Capacity established for all future analysis with review of architectural floor plans for all buildings; metric for long-term planning functions Program Capacity established with calculation

• f DOE designated Permanent Spaces and

Non-Capacity Spaces Per DOE, Utilization Factor applied at HS level

VDOE Capacity Worksheets

Design Capacity updated with completion of renovations and replacement of schools Program Capacity established as metric for long-term planning purposes; reflects actual (effective) utilization of buildings as benchmarked against annual enrollment

2019-20 Enrollment & Capacity Summary

School Level 09/30/2019 Enrollment Design Capacity Enrollment as % Design Capacity

(see map link below)

2019-20 SY Program Capacity Enrollment as % Program Capacity

(see map link below)

Elementary (PK-5) 28,477 32,320 88% 29,712 96% Middle (6-8) 14,780 15,186 97% 14,763 100% High (9-12) 19,308 21,358 90% 20,687 93% Total (excluding Regional Schools) 62,565 68,864 91% 65,162 96%

2019-20 School Capacity and Enrollment Full Report

Future Plans & Potential Impact

6

CHANGE IN CCPS REPORTING Sample Zoning Case proposing 610 dwelling units:

• Maximum potential impact based
• n approved housing units in the

County’s Approved Housing Pipeline Database (1st Qtr 2019) in current school attendance zones

• Construction phasing and/or

projected completion of future housing units not yet provided

• Approved residential rezonings not

yet approved by site plan/subdivision review are not included in this analysis

Enrollment Projection Accuracy

7

There are several factors over time that influence enrollment projection accuracy. For example:

• New housing growth
• In-out migration data
• New school construction and influx of students in the attendance zones (“lives-with” enrollment)
• Demographic changes
• Kindergarten enrollment - live birth data

Overall, enrollment projections for the district fall within what is considered acceptable levels based on industry standards; however, projections show a higher degree of “variability” for elementary and high schools. Unless the gaps in the County’s housing database are resolved, the following concerns remain with respect to long-range growth and new-school forecasting: ❖ An increase in the “variability” of projection accuracy ❖ A horizon that is reasonably accurate only out to ~2 to 3 year time frame

Enrollment Projection Comparison

8

• Actual Enrollment is the

annual September 30th snapshot

• CCPS Projections prepared

using Cohort Survival Ratio Methodology

• PK Enrollment included to

show total enrollment; these data are a fixed value based on program funding and slots available and are not included in the K-12 Cohort Survival Ratio Methodology

Control Chart of Enrollment Projection Percent Differences

9

Over-projected Proj > Act Under-projected Proj < Act

Upper and lower limits (+/- 3 standard deviations) - when breached - signal that a significant change influencing projection accuracy has occurred. Warning limits (+/- 2 standard deviations - not shown) indicate that there is a the potential that a significant change may be

• ccurring

Why is this important: Provides the limits where a projection percentage difference is outside what would normally be expected. From a budget perspective, it provides the basis for estimating any potential revenue overstatement.

3s = ~1.9% or ~1200 students 2s = ~1.3% or ~800 students

Planning - Student Projection Accuracy K-5

K-5 projection control limits fall outside of the preferred accuracy range of 2%

Planning - Student Projection Accuracy - MS

Middle school projection control limits fall just at the limits of the preferred level of accuracy

Planning - Student Projection Accuracy - HS

High School projection control limits fall just

• utside the preferred limits of accuracy.

Future Enrollment Projections

13

• CCPS enrollment projections are prepared using the Cohort Survival Ratio (CSR) Methodology, the

standard method used by school planners throughout the country.

• The CSR Methodology incorporates live births, historical enrollments, and housing data.
• Projected enrollments are most accurate for division-wide totals (K-12) and for school-level totals

(elementary, middle, and high).

• Refinement to current components of projection methodology (including new housing estimates,

impact of length of ownership, affordability, and in-out migration, among other analyses) would be helpful to develop more accurate individual school projections.

• County approved housing data and estimates -- unless housing data gaps are resolved -- will also

increase/contribute to the “variability” of student-enrollment projection accuracy.

• Research conducted by Statistical Forecasting LLC and RLS Demographics reveals that the predictive

ability of the CSR Methodology can range from 1-2 years or as many as 7 years but may not be the

• ptimal method for long-range forecasts.

TRANSPORTATION

Challenges and Recommendations

15

1. Driver shortage a. Short term - $0.75 per hour increase in driver pay - as proposed in Schedule B b. Long term proposal - i. Address the salary compression to retain experienced drivers ii. Look at other opportunities for our drivers during their off season 2. Inadequate funding a. Address adequate funding as a result of program growth and infrastructure improvements b.

• Ex. CBG, general student enrollment growth, SPED, trips, and additional technology require

adequate funding

Challenges and Recommendations

16

3. Feeder pattern stress a. Adjust some school start times to improve feeder-pattern alignment and bus balancing b.

• Ex. Tomahawk Creek, Grange Hall, Cosby cannot have the same start times

4. Office staff efficiency a. Short term - automate transportation side of time/attendance b. Long term - automate payroll side and address “pay by exception” versus pay by actual time worked 5. Staff (driver and office staff) development/training a. Additional safety training and defensive driving classes for existing drivers b. Additional training staff to provide services c. Training for office staff on all software systems to eliminate silos

Root Cause of Most Issues - Staffing

17

Driver Stats

• Routes in FY2020 ~500
• Total drivers needed including

substitute drivers = 533

• Drivers under contract: 462
• Shortage

○ 38 drivers ○ 33 substitute drivers

• Training

○ Drivers in the pipeline - 8 ○ Transferred to area offices week of 10/28 - 2 Actions Planned or Underway

• Training compensation to now include

attending learners’ CDL preparation course

• Plans to developing a survey tool to

learn what it would actually take to make the position attractive to other CDL drivers that currently do not drive a school bus

Arrival and Departure Times

18 * Available Data 9/3/19 - 10/25/19 (Source VEO Reports) **Based on available data 9/3/19 - 10/25/19 from VEO; Substitutes could not be identified as 2nd-Wave buses and thus are not included(n=1706)

Late Morning Arrivals

• ~1280 AM routes total, of which 6% arrive

after the tardy bell ○ ES - 7.0%* ○ MS - 3.5%* ○ HS - 5.8%*

• 83 routes originally planned as second wave,
• f which 7%** arrive after tardy bell
• 21 second-wave routes have been eliminated

to date Late Afternoon Departures

• 49% of buses are departing later than 10 min

after the bell (10/1 through 10/25)

• Standardization efforts for departure

procedure ○ Created best-practice guidelines ○ Shared with principals on Oct. 24

Time-Improvement Efforts

19

1. Staffing 2. Data Accuracy a. GPS software representative conducted training i. Addressing software inefficiencies and data accuracy through analysis of GeoZones and arrival and departure time windows, for ex. Shuttles, transfers, parking sites b. Plans are to capture data from school staff in bus loop and compare to GPS data 3. Arrival times in the morning a. Substitute buses remain a challenge b. Beginning to work on a bus-by-bus level to understand and eliminate late arrivals completely

• n first tier

4. Provided principals (Oct. 24) best practice guidelines for efficient dismissal a. Information provided are recommendations b. Pre-Post implementation data will be evaluated after one month

Silver Fleet

20

Student Transporter/Food Service Associate

• Dual employment: Transportation and

Food Service - 9 positions hired

• Mobile Silver Fleet

○ 4 cars ○ 3 Vans (saving 3 buses transporting to private-placement schools)

• 8 Silver Fleet vehicles not yet staffed

Major Route Change Protocol

21

Pre-planning Meeting with Routing Dept. and Area Offices

• Review changes
• Discuss driver

assignment

• Identify timetable
• Identify

benefits/drawbacks

• Review plan with Dr.

Frye

• Area Manager to review

plan with school

Week 1

Notifications

• Meet with drivers
• Drivers receive run sheet
• Drivers review turns
• Routing to archive all

students’ route information

• Drivers distribute letters to

students during PM run

• Area Office sends

notifications

• Website updated for the

whole school

Week 2

Feedback and Implementation

• Feedback from

schools/parents/drivers

• Final Updates
• Area Offices send a Reminder

School Messenger

• Change is put into effect
• Router to be on hand at the

impacted school before opening to make adjustment on the spot

• Area Manager to coordinate buses

from area office

Week 3

MyStop

22

Plans to help parents navigate MyStop

MyStop “Tip Sheet” for parents is under development and should be available on CCPS website by late November.

Private-Placement Schools

MyStop was not available for buses en route to and from private placement schools because the school is outside of the district which required special treatment for those routes within the software. This has been Resolved as of Oct. 9, 2019.

MyStop Goals

• Currently there are 14,996 MyStop users (33% of ridership).

The goal is to have 50% of ridership using MyStop by the end of the year for a target of 22,500 users.

• Office staff are unable to consistently enter bus changes into MyStop in real time.

Reasons: Staff training, office staff driving buses, and volume of changes needed daily due to absences and breakdowns. The goal is to have all office staff off of buses and data consistently entered by January 2020.

Operations Update

Nita Mensia-Joseph, Chief Operations Officer

• Dr. Calvin Frye, Director of Transportation

Atonja Allen, Senior Planning Administrator Presented to the School Board * November 12, 2019