Data Analysis Part 1

[This is an email published with permission from Dave Lunt concerning the projected enrollment figures.]

Superintendent Hintz and Board Members:

I've finished crunching some numbers and want to share my observations with you. I don't think any of you will be surprised with the outcome. However, you may not have seen the information presented in this fashion, and the magnitude of the trends may surprise you (as they did me).

As a bit of background, my data quest began about three months ago. During one of the board meetings, John Frederickson commented on the lack of enrollment growth in the west. He stated that, while there was a lot of construction activity, the new households weren't producing children. His comments didn't jibe with my personal observations or the demographic data pulled together by parents during the budgeting process.

At that point, it occurred to me that the lack of enrollment growth in the west may be explained by "leakage" from the district (which I shared with you has been occurring in our neighborhood) rather than birth rates. I subsequently requested some data from Don Pascoe and began my analysis. The information Hazel presented, coupled with what I received from Don in my initial and follow up requests, gave me what I needed to wrap this up.

Hazel indicated she is conducting more research on individual elementary schools, which should provide additional insight. She said it gets much harder to draw conclusions from secondary schools. I look forward to seeing the elementary data too.

Given the amount of data involved, I decided to split my project into two. The first will focus on the net outflow of students from the district. The second will focus on the impact of the flows on the mix of students in the district. Needless to say, both are extremely important and I believe should be closely monitored. I also understand the limitations of the data. Nonetheless, I believe that the numbers are accurate enough to serve as valuable, quantifiable benchmarks.

I have attached a file with some summary data and graphs. Although the graphs speak for themselves, I'll comment on each. One of my former bosses once asked me: "If a picture is worth a thousand words, why do you give us a picture and a thousand words?" I've taken this to heart, and I'll attempt to keep it brief.

• Enrollment in the district has been relatively flat, while the population of students in the district footprint has been growing about 1% annually (7% cumulatively) - a net difference of about 1,800 students or $14 million at $8K per student.



• The number of students opting into the district increased 3% annually (23% cumulatively) and has been relatively flat at about 3% of enrollment.



• The number of students opting out of the district in favor of other public or charter schools has been growing 15% annually (160% cumulatively), rising from 3% of enrollment to 9% of enrollment. Enrollment in charter schools has increased 19% annually and is up to 27% of outflows from 22%. Outflows to other districts rose 13% annually.



• As a result, the net negative spread of students opting for other public or charter schools is now over 1,000 students, increasing from 1% of enrollment to 6% of enrollment.



• Robbinsdale accounts for 20% of the outflow. Minneapolis is second (11%), Wayzata third (10%), Anoka-Hennepin fourth (8%), and Brooklyn Center fifth (7%). The percentages drop substantially from there. These five plus charter schools account for 83% of the total.



• Enrollment in private schools rose 5% annually (40% cumulatively), increasing from 7% of enrollment to 10% of enrollment.



• In total, private and public net outflows doubled, increasing 11% annually. Total net outflows rose from 7% of enrollment to 15%. So, the district's capture rate has fallen from nearly 91% to 84%.

District enrollment is flat because the district is losing share to alternatives. Quoting from Hazel’s report: “Competition for K-12 students is likely to increase. Public schools must compete for students.” “Because parents and students have so many options, the capture rate is likely to decrease.” The specific trend in our district is very concerning, and I believe that the situation will be exacerbated by recent decisions.

Extrapolating the current trends out seven years (my youngest son’s time horizon in the district), nearly 3,800 additional students would opt out of the district. At a 1% annualized growth rate, enrollment would increase by about 1,500 students. As a result, the district would be in the red 2,300 students after seven years, which means total enrollment would actually be down 11% seven years out. Flat enrollment is tough enough to deal with. I imagine declining enrollment would be brutal.

In addition, as I will discuss in the next note, the characteristics of the students leaving the district are very different from those coming into the district, which presents other challenges. I believe that these trends are related and potentially reinforcing. More to follow.

Dave