1-10-12 School District Enrollment Projections

8/3/2019 1-10-12 School District Enrollment Projections

1/68

01.10.12 Page 1

PLACE: ROOM A ADMINISTRATION BUILDING25 CHURCHILL AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA

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

PALO ALTO UNIFIEDSCHOOL DISTRICT

BOARD OF EDUCATION

AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING

Most Board of Education meetings are cablecast live on cable services CHANNEL 28 and webcast live onhttp: //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 ChurchillAvenue, 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 partic ipate in the meeting, please contact t he Superintendents Office at 650.329.3737 [email protected] Community members wishing to address the Board are allotted THREE minutes per speaker. Should more than 20people wish to address any one topi c, the Board may elect to allot a shorter t ime per speaker. Materials presented at the Board meeting

will be copied and prov ided to Board members after the meeting.

Additional instructions are listed on the back page of this agenda.

STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AND LEARNINGCreate an exceptional learning environment t hat engages, challenges, and supports all students so that they thrive andachieve their academic pot ential every year, while preparing them t o pursue col lege and other post-secondaryopportuniti es to be global citizens.

STAFF RECRUITMENT AND DEVELOPMENTCreate an exceptional teaching environment by recruiti ng, developing, and retaining the most t alented staff.

BUDGET TRENDS AND INFRASTRUCTUREBe prudent stewards of our r esources through rigorous pl anning and budgeting and build further resources byenhancing public and private support for public education.

GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNICATIONCreate a focused, transparent governance process that is a model of inf ormed communication and decision making.

I. A. Call to Order

II. STUDY SESSION

A. Voluntary Transfer Program Research Presentation Information 1

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

B. PAUSD Enrollment Projections K-12 Discuss ion 2

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

III. ADJOURN

A

B

C

D


2/68

1

BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Discuss ion 2

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 01.10.12

TO: Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent

FROM: Bob Golton, Facilities and Bond Program ManagerCathy Mak, Chief Business Official

SUBJECT: PAUSD Enrollment Projections K-12

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVEBudget Trends and Infrastructure

BACKGROUNDOn March 8, 2011, the Board of Education conducted a study session to review enrollment andfacilities planning for the elementary schools. This session included an overview of district valuesand guidelines, enrollment data and projections, district demographics, available funding and abrief overview of district facilities and opportunities to accommodate future growth. A subsequentstudy 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 increasecapacity.

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 addresselementary enrollment challenges.

Regarding these recommendations, the following has taken place.

1. A budget transfer of elementary school bond funds into the Elementary School Reservewas made on October 11, 2011. The reserve now stands on $33.3 million. This is inaddition 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.


3/68

2

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 Octoberenrollment information (the projections are dated December 26, 2011 and arepresented 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 planningvalues.

Planning Assumptions: (changes shown in i talics)

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 theDuveneck schematic design and budget, and a more minor augmentation to theFairmeadow budget at bid award.

4. Growth trends and location flexibility of district programs will guide planning5. More capacity is needed where the ratio of student residents to existing neighborhood

school classrooms is highest6. 95% of current students live in housing built before 20007. Extra classrooms provide important flexibility8. Empty seats are necessary to minimize overflow.

Elementary Facilities Planning Values (changes made at the June 7, 2011 Board meetingshown in italics):

1. Neighborhoods matter: provide routine access to neighborhood schools2. School size matters: keep schools at or below 4.5 strands3. 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 4-55. Peer Streaming matters: group neighborhood classmates together for middle and high

school.6. Special Education matters: ensure school stability and appropriate compliance7. Money matters: get a good return on bond investments8. Flexibility matters: plan a permanent extra classroom at all sites


4/68

3

9. Parity matters: plan comparable facilities, support staff space, play areas, andventilation/classroom comfort.

10.Learning matters: minimize disruption to school and classroom operations11.Contingencies matter: keep overflowed students within cluster when possible12.Diversity matters: consider the benefits of heterogeneous school communities13.

Continuity matters: to the extent possible, do not require students to change schools14. Opportunities matter: consider lease/purchase of strategic properties

THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONSThis year, the District retained the services of DecisionInsite to do the projections. This firmservices over 60 school districts, most of which are located in California. The firms services arehighly 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 changeanalysis, residential development research, community mailing lists, demographic reports and ofcourse, enrollment projections. Because of the degree of automation, there is an abundance ofinformation available and available quickly.

Staff was quite focused in their needs for the report for this year. We were interested in theenrollment projection, over multiple years K-12, as in the past. However, because of the Districtsmany conversations over the past on planning for additional elementary classrooms, we requiredstudent resident projections at least by elementary cluster, and better by individual elementaryschool attendance area. (Note: These are projections of numbers of students living in theattendance 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 studyblock can be a school, this works quite well for our purposes. Since they project K-12, we alsohave projections of student residents for each of the middle and high school attendance areas.

PREDICTING FUTURE ENROLLMENTLast 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 yearsenrollment is the High projection for elementary enrollment and the Low projection for both middleschool and high school enrollment.

DecisionInsite (DI) projections consist of two levels, Conservative and Moderate. We matchedyear-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. Inthe end, the DI Conservative projections tend to fall between the Low and Medium L&Gprojections. The DI Moderate projections tend to fall between the Medium and High L&Gprojections in the short term and are higher than the L&G High Projections for the longer term. Ourplan for now is therefore to use the DI Conservative projections when thinking about middle andhigh schools (perhaps with elevating the high school projection somewhat for next year), and usethe Moderate projections when thinking about elementary schools.

It should be noted that for both demographers, enrollment growth tends to level off after about thefirst five years. This is logical because they are analyzing existing development plans and knownprojects.


5/68

4

NOTES REGARDING THE ATTACHED TABLESThe 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 five-year growth is also shown.

Special Day Class (SDC) students are recorded separately, rather than being considered as beinglocated in a school attendance area. The rationale is that the SDC students do not necessarilyattend classes in their neighborhood schools. Regarding aggregate total enrollment forelementary, middle and high school students, a rough and easy rule of thumb would be to add 90students to the elementary total, 70 students to the middle school total and 90 students to the highschool 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 livingoutside the District (e.g. employee privilege students, VTP students) are not of course in theattendance area student totals.

THE TABLESTables 4 and Table 5 show the Conservative and Moderate projections district-wide. Regardingaggregate total enrollment for elementary, middle, and high school students, an easy rule of thumbwould be to add 90 students to the elementary total, 70 students to the middle school total and 90students 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 projectionsbetween a 2009 projection and a 2011 projection. We now have another projection and one that isvery different from each of the earlier projections. It projects an enrollment decline in the northcluster, 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 schoolattendance area. These are the components that make up the cluster projections.

Table 10 and Table 11 show the Conservative and Moderate projections by middle schoolattendance area.

Table 12 and Table 13 show the Conservative and Moderate projections by high school attendancearea.

Attached to this document, you will find the DecisionInsite Analysis of Enrollment Projections reportprepared for the District and also a draft of a powerpoint presentation to be presented at thismeeting.


6/68

5

NEXT STEPSWe are taking a step that has not been done in the past years. Our first priority enrollment periodhas started and ends on February 10. A substantial amount of enrollmentespeciallyKindergarten enrollmenttakes place at this time. We will compare this years data to last year. Itwill 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 beplaced on a Board meeting in February, in conformance with the timeline. We will also includesome initial discussion about elementary and middle school growth. We have also started staffdiscussions regarding recommendations for increased school capacity. We will be bringing this toa Board meeting in April, as called for on the timeline.

RECOMMENDATIONThe purpose of this item is to provide information and to seek comments and direction from theBoard of Education. No action is required.


7/686


8/687


9/688


10/689


11/6810


12/6811


13/6812


14/6813


15/6814


16/6815


17/6816


18/6817


19/6818


20/6819


21/6820


22/6821


23/6822


24/6823


25/6824


26/68

ANALYSIS OF ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

Fall 2012

Prepared for:

Palo Alto Unified School District

Pre ared b :

7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800Irvine, CA

Submitted: Jan 05, 2012

Page 1


27/68

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......... 3

Enrollment Projections - Fall 2012..... 3

District Enrollment Projections..... 4

Page

ecen anges n nro men .....Kindergarten Impact......... 4Live Birth Trends..........4Cohort Impact........5Incoming Out-of-District Transfer Impact..... 6

Key Variables in Projecting District Enrollment..... 6Impact of Projected New Dwelling Units..... 7

Projected Occupancy......... 7Students Generated........... 8Student Generation Rates....... 8

Projected Enrollment Changes by Level..... 9Conservative 5 Year District-wide Projection by Grade Level...9Moderate 5 Year District-wide Projection by Grade Level... 95 Year Enrollment Trends: Moderate and Conservative Compared... 1010 Year Enrollment Trends: Moderate and Conservative Compared... 11

Elementary School Level....... 11Middle School Level......... 12Hi h School Level........... 12

Summary of District Projections by Year..... 13Conservative Projection....... 13Moderate Projection........ 14Grade Level Profile Comparison..... 14

Projecting School Enrollment..... 15School Draw Impact........ 15Intra-district Transfers.......... 15Inter-district Transfers........ 15

...Appendix....... 17

Assumptions and Methodology..... 17

District Projections........... 17Caveats on Projections and Methodology..... 19

Page 2


28/68


Executive Summary

Enrollment Projections - Fall 2012

Kindergarten Enrollment

ec s on ns e s p ease o presen s repor o n ngs o e oar o uca on an xecu ve a o a o o

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.

In general, Kindergarten enrollment over the past three years has been somewhat erratic. The data also show that

Cohort Patterns

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.

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

New Housing Development

District-wide Enrollment Projection

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.

Both projections forecast a significant increase across the 10 year period based upon the historical enrollment trends

Approximately 800 new residential units are projected to be occupied over the next 10 years.

More Information

Respectfully Prepared and Submitted by:

The DecisionInsite Team

.

A richer and more comprehensive review of these two studies is contained in the Final Report accompanying thisExecutive Summary.

January 5, 2012

Page 3


29/68


District Enrollment Projections

Recent Changes in EnrollmentFamiliarity with recent historical enrollment patterns and trends establishes the foundation for understanding projected

enrollment.

102%

111%

107%

102%

107%

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

Figure: 1

Kindergarten ImpactKindergarten 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.

ese pro ec ons re ec c anges n age e g y or a orn a n ergar en. e resu s a m n s e n ergar en

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 2010 2011

Figure: 2

Live Birth TrendsLive birth trends have an impact in large geographies, and on long range projections. However, in smaller areas of

Kindergarten 96% 108% 98%

Grade 12 to K'tn 102% 101% 107%

Total K-12 102% 102% 102%

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%.

, , ,

effectiveness of live births as a predictor of enrollment.

Page 4


30/68

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.

900

1000

Live Birth - Kindergarten Cohort Comparison

100

200

300

400

500

600

700800

Figure: 3

The Live Birth Enrollment Rate is the percentage of live births in zip codes served by the district that enroll as

'

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Live Births KindergartenSource: DecisionInsite

. .

Page 5


31/68

Cohort ImpactA 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'.

4 > 5 105% ++++ SSSS

2 > 3 103% ++++

3 > 4 104% ++++

5 > 6 99%

1 > 2 102% ++++

Average Cohort Change Past Three Years

Cohort Percent +/- Significant

K > 1 105% ++++ SSSS

Figure: 4

----

10 > 11 97% ----

11 > 12 97%

6 > 7 103% ++++

7 > 8 102% ++++

8 > 9 111% ++++ SSSS

9 > 10 100%

Page 6


32/68

Incoming Out-of-District Transfer Impact

Key Variables in Projecting District Enrollment

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.

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.

Kindergarten Enrollment Change

Cohort Change 3 Year History

3 Year History

The variables that distinguish the Conservative projection from the Moderate are described in the table below.

4 Year History

4 Year History

Variable Conservative Study Moderate Study

Constrains upward Kindergarten trends

Assumes developer(s) phasing calendar

Incoming Out-of-District Transfers Assumes relatively stable rate Assumes relat ively stable rate

Dwelling Units

Student Generation Rates

K Enrollment Change Cap

K Enrollment Change Floor

Allows increasing Kindergarten trends

Limits downward Kindergarten trends

Typical of recent historyTypical of recent history

Shifts developer(s) calendar

Allows downward Kindergarten trends

Figure: 5

Page 7


33/68

Impact of Projected New Dwelling Units

Projected OccupancyApproximately 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.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

81 89 25

25 50 132 132 150

18 61 42 8

106 157 218 174 158 0 0 0 0 0

Figure: 6

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

Multi-family

Attached

Detached

Totals:

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

36 52 27 34 27 17 1

11 23 46 64 84 91 75 75 5

8 17 23 26 33 21 5 147 83 90 121 137 141 97 80 6

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

Multi-family

Attached

DetachedTotals:

gure:

The graph below depicts visually the differences between the phasing projected in the Moderate and Conservative

studies.

250

Projected Dwelling Unit Occupancy

0

50

100

150

200

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

DwellingUnits

Figure: 8

Year

Moderate Conservative

Page 8


34/68

Students GeneratedOver 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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20210 90 205 309 399 416 429 439 446 452

32 59 118 112 104 36 36 36 36 36

Figure: 9

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

38% 49% 42% 46% 53% 70% 82% 91% 93% 94%A re ate

Annual

0

Conservative Students Generated as a Percent of Moderate

Aggregate

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.

", ,

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


35/68

Projected Enrollment Changes by Level

Conservative 5 Year District-wide Projection by Grade Level

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

the current year.

Grade 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

916 840 842

7 849 867 921 906 1008

937 1024 996 1040

974

1005

6 857 908 895 995 965 999

5 934

988 899

3 973 945 987 960 883

4 914 997 971 1013

K 886 806 807 810 888 878

846

875

928

2 918 958 932 855 858 859

1 942

Figure: 11

996 950 979

11850 11952 12044 12245 12332

Pct Chg: 2.5% 0.1% 0.9% 0.8% 1.7% 0.7%

Subtotals: 11833

924 887

11 873 905 887 958 913

1041

952

12 926 842 873 856

1024

10 936 917 989 942 974 1035

9 924

917 10178 901 856 876 932

Moderate 5 Year District-wide Projection by Grade Level

930 881 899 913 1004

2 918 970 958 912 928 944

1 942

948 947

Grade 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

K 886 833 845 860

1008 977 1029 1120

11 873 914 904 991 959 1016

1114

10 936 924 1009 980 1033 1122

9 924

991 1105

7 849 881 958 959 1077

945 1046 1033 1093

1059

8 901 871 909 994

1078

6 857 926 922 1040 1023 1071

5 934

1045 9864 914 1008 994 1054

Figure: 12

2.7%

13340

Pct Chg: 2.5% 1.5% 2.4% 3.3% 2.3%

Subtotals: 11833 12014 12302 12632 13044

Page 10


36/68

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.

12000

14000

16000

District

0

2000

4000

6000

800010000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

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

onservat ve o erate

Source: DecisionInsite

5 Year Enrollment Trends: Moderate and Conservative Compared

Gr K-5 5444 5917

Kindergarten Only 878 947

Change 99% 107%

.

Change by Level Conservative Moderate

Change 98% 106%

Change 107% 114%

Gr 6-8 2990 3235

Change 115% 124%

Gr 9-12 3898 4187

District 12332 13339

Figure: 14

Change 104% 113%

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

Page 11


37/68

10 Year Enrollment Trends: Moderate and Conservative Compared

Change 92% 102%

The table below compares the ten year projections. In the ten year future at Kindergarten, both studies, viewed

together, project a relatively stable trend.



4784

Gr K-5

Change

5390 6051

Change 97%

2707 3159Gr 6-8

109%

104% 121%

Gr 9-12 4194

Change 115% 131%

Figure: 15

The graphs below compare the Conservative and Moderate enrollment projections by key grade level groupings.

Elementary School Level

Change 104% 118%


The change projected by both studies over the ten year period represents a slight increase.

5000

6000

7000

Elementary

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Conservative Moderate

Figure: 16

Page 12


38/68

Middle School Level

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

3000

3500

Middle School

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Figure: 17

High School Level

At the high school level, a significant increase is projected in the ten year future.



2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

High School

Figure: 18

02011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021



Page 13


39/68

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.

Conservative Projection

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

886 806 807 810 888 878 869 859 848 833 819

98% 91% 100% 100% 110% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 98%

99% 93%

Kindergarten Only

Pct Previous Year

Change by Level

Five Year Change

.

5567 5559 5561 5476 5503 5444 5413 5451 5485 5485 5390

104% 100% 100% 98% 100% 99% 99% 101% 101% 100% 98%

98% 99%

2607 2631 2692 2833 2890 2990 2965 2882 2756 2646 2707

102% 101% 102% 105% 102% 103% 99% 97% 96% 96% 102%

115% 91%

Five Year Change

Five Year Change

Gr K-5

Pct Previous Year

Pct Previous Year

Gr 6-8

3659 3660 3699 3735 3852 3898 4089 4200 4280 4336 4194

100% 100% 101% 101% 103% 101% 105% 103% 102% 101% 97%

107% 108%

11833 11850 11952 12044 12245 12332 12467 12533 12521 12467 12291

103% 100% 101% 101% 102% 101% 101% 101% 100% 100% 99%

104% 100%

NOTE: Gray column most recent history year.

Gr 9-12

Pct Previous Year

Five Year Change

District

Pct Previous Year

Five Year Change

Page 14


40/68

Moderate Projection

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

886 833 845 860 948 947 939 930 922 914 906

98% 94% 101% 102% 110% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

107% 96%

Kindergarten Only

Pct Previous Year

Five Year Change

Change by Level

5567 5642 5735 5761 5881 5917 5927 5994 6058 6105 6051104% 101% 102% 100% 102% 101% 100% 101% 101% 101% 99%

106% 102%

2607 2678 2789 2993 3091 3235 3240 3202 3120 3060 3159

102% 103% 104% 107% 103% 105% 100% 99% 97% 98% 103%

124% 98%

3659 3694 3779 3878 4073 4187 4436 4606 4733 4853 4784

Gr K-5Pct Previous Year

Five Year Change

Gr 9-12

Gr 6-8

Five Year Change

Pct Previous Year

100% 101% 102% 103% 105% 103% 106% 104% 103% 103% 99%

114% 114%

11833 12014 12303 12632 13045 13339 13603 13802 13911 14018 13994

103% 102% 102% 103% 103% 102% 102% 101% 101% 101% 100%

113% 105%

NOTE: Gray column most recent history year.Figure: 20

District

Pct Previous Year

Pct Previous Year

Five Year Change

Five Year Change

Grade Level Profile ComparisonAnother 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.

1100

1200

Grade Level Profiles(Conservative Projection)

500

600

700

800

900

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

Grade Level

Figure: 21

Current Five Year Ten Year

Page 15


41/68

Projecting School Enrollment

School Draw Impact

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.

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

Intra-district Transfers

,

(including out-of-district students) are assumed in the projections.

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.

-

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


42/68

Analyzing/Studying/Reviewing the Enrollment Projectionse pro ect ons o str ct an sc oo enro ment are ase on a comp ex m x o stor ca ata, t e pro ect on o

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.

Respectfully Prepared and Submitted by:

The DecisionInsite TeamJanuary 5, 2012

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.

Page 17


43/68

Appendix

Assumptions and Methodology

2. changes in the grade level cohorts of students served as they age through, and3. changes in the number of residential units within the district

Three major factors drive district-wide student enrollment projections. These include:1. recent kindergarten enrollment trends, modified by live birth data, if applicable,

District Projections

Studyblocks

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.

or emograp c ana ys s an enro ment pro ect ons, t e str ct s v e nto stu y oc s. stu y oc s a custom

unit of geography created by DecisionInsite for the purpose of generating reliable projections. They are based either


The projected Kindergarten enrollment is a key variable in projecting K12 enrollment. The base Kindergartenprojection is determined by the trend of Kindergartners served in each studyblock in the previous 3 or 4 years.

De endin on the circumstances a rowth trend in Kinder arten enrollment ma be ca ed. Stee strai ht-line

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.

Students in the Projections

trends are mathematically moderated to avoid unrealistic results.

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

Closed SchoolsOpportunities for open enrollment (intra-district) are assumed to remain unchanged, unless otherwise noted by the

district.

Attendance boundaries are assumed to remain constant, unless otherwise noted by the district.

Page 18


44/68

Inter-district Enrollment

Cohort Percent Change

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 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 cohortweighted 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

chan e in recent earsdue t icall to new housin develo ment. Once rowth stud blocks are identified their

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.

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.

.

2. Student GenerationStudent 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.

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.

3. Grade Level DistributionFor 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


45/68

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

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.

.

the historical data provided is at one year intervals based on enrollment at the beginning of each school year.

On Student Data

, .

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.

DecisionInsite obtains historical student data fi les from the district. To the extent that the student data files areinternally inconsistent from year to year, or the count of students in the fi les 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.

e ca cu a ons assume a e s or ca a a prov e s a one year n erva s ase on enro men a e eg nn ng

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

pro ections.

Page 20


46/68

1/6/20

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


47/68

1/6/20

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 andenrollment 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

4


48/68

1/6/20

Presentation

Population projections within PAUSD

PAUSD Historical Enrollment Analysis

PAUSD Enrollment Forecast

5

PAUSD

Selected Community

Demographic Trends

6


49/68

1/6/20

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 YearEstimate and 5 Year Projection

7

Projected Population Change: 5 Years

8


50/68

1/6/20

Projected Population Change: 10 Years

9

PAUSD

Enrollment History

10


51/68

1/6/20

Recent Historical Changes

Kindergarten 102%

Gr K-5 111%

Gr 6-8 107%

Gr 9-12 102%

District 107%

4 Year History Change

11

Kindergarten Impact

2009 2010 2011

Kindergarten 96% 108% 98%

Grade 12 to K'tn 102% 101% 107%

Total K-12 102% 102% 102%

Percent Change of Previous Year

12


52/68

1/6/20

Sample Studyblock Variability

Studyblock Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011

A K 56 59 44 66

B K 84 57 93 75

C K 80 76 82 63

13


by Ethnicity

14


53/68

1/6/20

Students New to the District2011 Grades 1-12

15

Live Birth

Not a significantcorrelation betweenLive Births andKindergartenenrollment 5 yearslater.

Live Birth Enrollment

Rate ~101%

16


54/68

1/6/20

Cohort Aging

Cohort Percent +/- Significant

K > 1 105% ++++ SSSS

1 > 2 102% ++++

2 > 3 103% ++++

3 > 4 104% ++++

4 > 5 105% ++++ SSSS

5 > 6 99%

6 > 7 103% ++++

7 > 8 102% ++++

8 > 9 111% ++++ SSSS

9 > 10 100%

10 > 11 97% ----11 > 12 97% ----

Average Cohort Change Past Three Years

17

Grade Level Profiles

18

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

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

Grade Level

Grade Level Profiles(Conservative Projection)

Current Five Year Ten Year


55/68

1/6/20

Out of District

nic SDC

Out of Districtenrollment

has beenrelatively

stable

Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011

K 75 75 84 84

1 78 71 70 78

2 64 78 68 72

3 62 59 77 63

4 56 55 58 74

5 55 55 54 57

6 67 52 52 48

7 51 62 49 49

8 37 48 62 53

9 42 37 52 61

10 39 37 36 49

11 38 37 34 36

12 52 48 32 39

Total 716 714 728 763

19

PAUSD Student

Enrollment

Reach

PAUSD Student

Enrollment

Reach

12077students

plotted,

810(6.7%)

out of

district

20


56/68

1/6/20

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


57/68

1/6/20

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

24

Variable Conservative Study Moderate Study

Kindergarten Enro llment Change 3 Year History 4 Year History

Cohort Change 3 Year History 4 Year History

K Enrollment Change Cap Constrains upward Kindergarten trends Allows increasing Kindergarten trends

K Enrollment Change Floor Allows downward Kindergarten trends Limits downward Kindergarten trends

Dwell ing Units Shifts developer(s) calendar Assumes developer(s) phasing calendar

Student Generation Rates Typical of recent history Typical of recent history

Incoming Out-of-District Transfers Assumes relatively stable rate Assumes relatively stable rate


58/68

1/6/20

Moderate 5 Year Projection

Grade 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

K 886 833 845 860 948 947

1 942 930 881 899 913 1004

2 918 970 958 912 928 944

3 973 956 1011 1003 954 958

4 914 1008 994 1054 1045 986

5 934 945 1046 1033 1093 1078

6 857 926 922 1040 1023 1071

7 849 881 958 959 1077 1059

8 901 871 909 994 991 1105

9 924 1008 977 1029 1120 1114

10 936 924 1009 980 1033 1122

11 873 914 904 991 959 1016

12 926 848 889 878 961 935

Subtotals: 11833 12014 12302 12632 13044 13340

Pct Chg: 2.5% 1.5% 2.4% 2.7% 3.3% 2.3%

25

Cohort Change Array

PlAlt12Mod

Grade 2009 2010 2011 Average 1:2:3 Avg 2012 2013 2014 2015

K 96% 108% 98% 101% 101% 94% 101% 102% 110%

1 106% 104% 104% 105% 105% 105% 106% 106% 106%

2 100% 101% 105% 102% 103% 103% 103% 104% 103%

3 100% 105% 105% 103% 104% 104% 104% 105% 105%

4 105% 104% 105% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104%

5 105% 104% 105% 105% 105% 103% 104% 104% 104%

6 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 99%

7 103% 103% 102% 103% 103% 103% 103% 104% 104%

8 103% 103% 101% 102% 102% 103% 103% 104% 103%

9 112% 112% 110% 111% 111% 112% 112% 113% 113%

10 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

11 98% 98% 96% 97% 97% 98% 98% 98% 98%

12 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%

102% 102%

26


59/68

1/6/20

Geographic Area Enrollment

NORTH CLUSTER

Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

K 269 201 266 223 218 220 222 242 240

1 231 292 221 280 242 237 239 240 261

2 275 235 282 228 281 243 238 240 243

3 229 281 245 298 238 293 254 248 247

4 247 234 287 254 308 246 303 262 253

5 267 257 250 299 266 322 258 317 269

K-5 Total 1518 1500 1551 1582 1553 1561 1514 1549 1513

Increase -18 51 31 -29 8 -47 35 -36

% Increase -1.19% 3.40% 2.00% -1.83% 0.52% -3.01% 2.31% -2.32%

5-year growth = -69 -4.4%

27

Geographic Area EnrollmentWEST CLUSTER

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

K 249 270 246 277 261 266 277 312 316

1 249 269 279 254 291 273 286 300 333

2 276 236 269 285 259 294 285 298 310

3 233 264 253 281 297 271 314 304 314

4 216 244 283 272 298 316 293 339 322

5 253 239 255 294 283 310 335 310 357

K-5 Total 1476 1522 1585 1663 1689 1730 1790 1863 1952

Increase 46 63 78 26 41 60 73 89

% Increase 3.12% 4.14% 4.92% 1.56% 2.43% 3.47% 4.08% 4.78%

5-year growth = 289 17.4%

28


60/68

1/6/20

Geographic Area Enrollment

SOUTH CLUSTER

Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

K 273 289 309 302 279 285 288 314 310

1 274 288 302 330 323 302 305 306 334

2 246 285 308 333 351 346 321 323 324

3 269 258 299 331 352 374 365 338 333

4 283 296 265 314 343 368 386 377 349

5 305 288 306 284 322 354 376 395 386

K-5 Total 1650 1704 1789 1894 1970 2029 2041 2053 2036

Increase 54 85 105 76 59 12 12 -17

% Increase 3.27% 4.99% 5.87% 4.01% 2.99% 0.59% 0.59% -0.83%

5-year growth = 142 7.5%

29

Middle School Enrollment

30

PlAlt12Cnsv

Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

6 798 859 833 857 908 895 994 964 999

7 818 821 889 849 867 920 906 1008 973

8 813 842 842 901 856 876 932 917 1018

SDC 76 71 71 71 73 75 79 79 82

6-8 Total 2505 2593 2635 2678 2704 2766 2911 2968 3072

Increase 88 42 43 26 62 145 57 104

% Increase 3.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.0% 2.3% 5.2% 2.0% 3.5%

5-Year growth = 394 14.7%

Inc. Out of District


61/68

1/6/20

Middle School Enrollment

PlAlt12Mod

Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

6 798 859 833 857 926 922 1040 1022 1071

7 818 821 889 849 881 959 959 1076 1059

8 813 842 842 901 872 909 994 991 1105

SDC 76 71 71 71 74 78 86 88 92

6-8 Total 2505 2593 2635 2678 2753 2868 3079 3177 3327

Increase 88 42 43 75 115 211 98 150

% Increase 3.5% 1.6% 1.6% 2.8% 4.2% 7.4% 3.2% 4.7%


31


High School Enrollment

32

PlAlt12Cnsv

Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

9 974 912 945 924 996 949 980 1041 1024

10 870 977 911 936 917 988 942 973 1035

11 915 851 959 873 905 887 958 914 952

12 816 898 826 926 842 873 856 924 887

SDC 84 91 97 90 90 91 93 96 98

9-12 Total 3659 3729 3738 3749 3750 3788 3829 3948 3996

Increase 70 9 11 1 38 41 119 48

% Increase 1.9% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 1.0% 1.1% 3.1% 1.2%5-Year growth = 247 6.6%



62/68

1/6/20

High School Enrollment

PlAlt12Mod

Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

9 974 912 945 924 1008 977 1029 1120 1114

10 870 977 911 936 924 1009 979 1032 1122

11 915 851 959 873 914 903 991 960 1016

12 816 898 826 926 848 888 878 961 935

SDC 84 91 97 90 92 94 99 104 108

9-12 Total 3659 3729 3738 3749 3786 3871 3976 4177 4295

Increase 70 9 11 37 85 105 201 118

% Increase 1.9% 0.2% 0.3% 1.0% 2.2% 2.7% 5.1% 2.8%


33


Transition K Projection(based on 100% participation)

(PlAlt12Mod)

Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TranK 0 0 0 0 75 153 235 237 237

K 866 835 905 886 833 845 860 948 947

34


63/68

1/6/20

New Dwelling Units

The Conservative table estimates a more likely

scenario based on anticipated market conditions

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

81 89 25

25 50 132 132 150

18 61 42 8

106 157 218 174 158 0 0 0 0 0

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

36 52 27 34 27 17 1

11 23 46 64 84 91 75 75 5

8 17 23 26 33 21 5 1

47 83 90 121 137 141 97 80 6

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

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

Multi-family

Attached

Detached

Totals:

Multi-family

Attached

Detached

Totals:

35

Projected Dwelling Unit Occupancy

36


64/68

1/6/20

Students Generated by New Housing

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

0 90 205 309 399 416 429 439 446 452

32 59 118 112 104 36 36 36 36 36

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

38% 49% 42% 46% 53% 70% 82% 91% 93% 94%Aggregate

Annual

0

Conservative Students Generated as a Percent of Moderate

Students Generated by Residential Development (Moderate)

Aggregate

37

District-wide Projections

38


65/68

1/6/20

2

Conservative and Moderate

Compared 5 Year

4784

Change 92% 102%

Gr K-5

Change

5390 6051

Change 97%

2707 3159Gr 6-8

109%

104% 121%

Gr 9-12 4194

Change 104% 118%

Change 115% 131%




39

Elementary Level

40


66/68

1/6/20

2

Middle School Level

41

High School Level

42


67/68

1/6/20

2

General Conclusions

Community population relatively stable

Erratic Kindergarten history creates wider thanusual difference between the out year projections inthe two studies.

Some, but relatively minor impact from newhousing.

Out of district enrollment is stable.

Projected annual enrollment change is similar topast history: ~2-3%

43

PAUSDEnrollmentProjectionsK12

January10,2012

PaloAltoUnifiedSchoolDistrict


68/68

1/6/20

NextSteps

Needtomakedecisionsonnextstepsforaddingelementarycapacity

Needtodevelopmiddleschoolenrollmentdecisions

February14Boardmeeting

Budgetforelementaryconstruction

Discussionofelementaryandmiddleschool

topicsshown

above

January10,2012 PaloAltoUnifiedSchoolDistrict

Documents

1-10-12 School District Enrollment Projections