U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-10-2017, 02:51 PM
 
9 posts, read 9,991 times
Reputation: 17

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rancher4life View Post
Do you have current enrollment numbers? Are they posted online?
I edited my previous post to attach the data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2017, 02:59 PM
 
9 posts, read 9,991 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSweetOnion View Post
Why in the world would we push boundaries East when we have elementary schools in the Marvin Ridge, Sun Valley, and Porter Ridge clusters operating at around 70% of capacity cluster-wide? Porter Ridge Elementary is actually running around 59% of capacity.

Based on UCPS data, the clusters have the following elementary capacity utilizations:

Monroe 83.97%
Forest Hills 81.83%
Piedmont 90.67%
Porter Ridge 72.84%
Sun Valley 73.13%
Weddington 93.66%
Marvin 71.77%
Cuthbertson 101.62%
Parkwood 85.05%


That's if you rely on the last capacity numbers posted for the public.
That 85.05% for Parkwood elementaries is including the capacity for the planned Western Union addition. Parkwood elementaries are currently at 96.14% capacity utilization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2017, 03:12 PM
 
2,200 posts, read 2,379,221 times
Reputation: 3145
Might be nice to post the 2015 capacity numbers.
CAPS people said the BOE and Staff were lying and now the capacity numbers are correct.

I recall checking and the new numbers posted here are identical to the 2015 numbers.

I'll try to find the archived 2015 capacities when I get near a real computer... lol!

That 59% number for PRES is accurate, but misleading in the system capacity discussion.

It's the middle school and high school numbers that matter. Look at where the bottleneck is in the cluster system. 3 elementary schools of five grade levels, 1 middle school of three grade levels and 1 high school of four grade levels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2017, 03:14 PM
 
161 posts, read 153,069 times
Reputation: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooLogical View Post
Using the data in those previous links:

School - Capacity - Enrollment

High Schools
CHS - 1600 - 1546
FHS - 1275 - 1025
MHS - 1000 - 1190
PWHS - 1235 - 1160
PHS - 1330 - 1381
PRHS - 1400 - 1748
SVHS - 1460 - 1453
WHS - 1400 - 1362
MRHS - 1600 - 1662

Middle Schools
CMS - 1200 - 1235
EUMS - 1000 - 890
MMS - 1000 - 946
PWMS - 1000 - 1000
PMS - 1000 - 1041
PRMS - 1200 -1347
SVMS - 1300 - 1322
WMS - 1000 - 1013
MRMS - 1200 - 1188
These capacity numbers are in no way accurate. SVHS can not house more students than PRHS or WHS. SVMS
is. It the largest middle school. I read the first duty of this board is to establish TRUE capacity numbers. So let's see what those TRUE numbers actually are, then see what the demographer's numbers are. I think we will see a very different picture. I think we will see kids moved back to Marvin and Weddington. Piedmont and PR are getting expansions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2017, 03:20 PM
 
9 posts, read 9,991 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooLogical View Post
Using the data in those previous links:

School - Capacity - Enrollment

High Schools
CHS - 1600 - 1546
FHS - 1275 - 1025
MHS - 1000 - 1190
PWHS - 1235 - 1160
PHS - 1330 - 1381
PRHS - 1400 - 1748
SVHS - 1460 - 1453
WHS - 1400 - 1362
MRHS - 1600 - 1662

Middle Schools
CMS - 1200 - 1235
EUMS - 1000 - 890
MMS - 1000 - 946
PWMS - 1000 - 1000
PMS - 1000 - 1041
PRMS - 1200 -1347
SVMS - 1300 - 1322
WMS - 1000 - 1013
MRMS - 1200 - 1188
If you want to look at middle and high---Enrollment(ADM) vs Capacity (with the proposed additions)

Middle
Monroe 94.7%
East Union 88.9%
Piedmont 99.6%
Porter Ridge 83.94%
Sun Valley 101.85%
Weddington 101.2%
Marvin 98.92%
Cuthbertson 102.83%
Parkwood 99.6%

High
Monroe 79.07%
Forest Hills 80.63%
Piedmont 86.13%
Porter Ridge 97.06%
Sun Valley 80.78%
Weddington 97.21%
Marvin 103.94%
Cuthbertson 96.63%
Parkwood 93.93%

The empty nesting hits the elementaries before it hits the middle and high schools.

Also, we are talking about current enrollment here not forecasted enrollment. I'm interested to see McKibben's forecast since it will account for charter schools this time.

Last edited by TheSweetOnion; 02-10-2017 at 04:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2017, 03:26 PM
 
631 posts, read 737,996 times
Reputation: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSweetOnion View Post
If you want to look at middle and high---Enrollment(ADM) vs Capacity (with the proposed additions)

Middle
Monroe 94.7%
East Union 88.9%
Piedmont 99.6%
Porter Ridge 83.94%
Sun Valley 101.85%
Weddington 101.2%
Marvin 98.92%
Cuthbertson 102.83%
Parkwood 99.6%

U]High[/u]
Monroe 79.07%
Forest Hills 80.63%
Piedmont 86.13%
Porter Ridge 97.06%
Sun Valley 80.78%
Weddington 97.21%
Marvin 103.94%
Cuthbertson 96.63%
Parkwood 93.93%

The empty nesting hits the elementaries before it hits the middle and high schools.

Also, we are talking about current enrollment here not forecasted enrollment. I'm interested to see McKibben's forecast since it will account for charter schools this time.
Cool, thanks!

Here's a whole lot of forecasting history with a few McKibben's in the list.
Facilities / Reports
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2017, 03:31 PM
 
9 posts, read 9,991 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by getatag View Post
Might be nice to post the 2015 capacity numbers.
CAPS people said the BOE and Staff were lying and now the capacity numbers are correct.

I recall checking and the new numbers posted here are identical to the 2015 numbers.

I'll try to find the archived 2015 capacities when I get near a real computer... lol!

That 59% number for PRES is accurate, but misleading in the system capacity discussion.

It's the middle school and high school numbers that matter. Look at where the bottleneck is in the cluster system. 3 elementary schools of five grade levels, 1 middle school of three grade levels and 1 high school of four grade levels.
I don't think anyone believes the current capacity numbers are correct. The first step in the realignment process has to be to establish a consistent method for calculating both classroom and core capacity at all schools. Capacities can't be set based on what staff feels the facilities can hold and they can't be set to include future capacity planned by UCPS in the CCEP. The capacities need to be based in reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2017, 03:34 PM
 
631 posts, read 737,996 times
Reputation: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rancher4life View Post
These capacity numbers are in no way accurate. SVHS can not house more students than PRHS or WHS. SVMS
is. It the largest middle school. I read the first duty of this board is to establish TRUE capacity numbers. So let's see what those TRUE numbers actually are, then see what the demographer's numbers are. I think we will see a very different picture. I think we will see kids moved back to Marvin and Weddington. Piedmont and PR are getting expansions.
Melissa Merrill was all over the capacity numbers during the past year, which is why you see the better data about Media Center and Cafeteria square footage; each with options for 3-4 lunches or 4-6 sqft/student.

You're right, though, SVHS actually does look high based on the data they posted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2017, 03:52 PM
 
161 posts, read 153,069 times
Reputation: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSweetOnion View Post
I don't think anyone believes the current capacity numbers are correct. The first step in the realignment process has to be to establish a consistent method for calculating both classroom and core capacity at all schools. Capacities can't be set based on what staff feels the facilities can hold and they can't be set to include future capacity planned by UCPS in the CCEP. The capacities need to be based in reality.
I agree with you. Until then this is all speculation and not worth my concern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2017, 04:41 PM
 
9 posts, read 9,991 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rancher4life View Post
I agree with you. Until then this is all speculation and not worth my concern.
That's for sure. All we have right now is a year-old forecast that doesn't account for charter schools and some dubious classroom and core capacity numbers. I think a lot of eyes will be opened when get the new forecast and some realistic capacities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top