The district passed the Districtwide Facility Assessment (DFA) in August 2022 without factoring in growth data that includes the additional students generated by new construction. Even though it was in their scope of work and in their methodology section, LPA (the company hired to create the DFA) said during the board meeting that they only used demographic data, which does not include the growth data. The board approved their work right after they were told it was not included. 

The growth data projections were completed by a 3rd party company (Decision Insite) 15 months before the approval meeting but it was never given to the board (or the public, despite multiple requests for that data) prior to the approval of the DFA. The data was referenced in the slide deck presentation that was presented by Power School (formerly Decision Insite) during the board meeting and the presenter was surprised that the district did not include the spreadsheets containing the enrollment projections in the attachments for the board meeting (which also hides it from the public). Assistant Superintendent Lewis Wiley could be heard on a nearby hot mic, stating that he did not have time to add it to the meeting packet (it was just a spreadsheet to upload). Community members had to ask for it after the board meeting in order to gain access to the omitted spreadsheets containing the enrollment projections. 

Upon inquiry after the approval of the DFA, LPA claimed that the new housing development was included in the demographics report used for the plan. However, this contradicts their statement made during the board meeting. The growth data is also not mentioned or included explicitly in the plan anywhere and there is no evidence that it made any meaningful impact on the plan itself. Especially since all that was considered is “district-wide capacity”.

An analysis of these enrollment data projections (see attached slide deck) makes evident how vital its inclusion is for long-range facility and financial planning, since it includes enrollment projections on the individual school site level that factor in the impact of new housing development. 

Without considering the residential growth data in the enrollment projections the board dedicated a large portion of the Measure Y bond money to modernizing classrooms at school sites that are projected to be at 50-60% capacity by 2030, while elementary schools East of East Street (with the exception of Prairie) largely don’t receive any of the measure Y funds, even though they are projected to be at or past capacity and will make up 40% of all elementary students by 2030.

The only reason the amendment of the DFA to add to the assessment is on the board agenda this Thursday is due to an official item request made by Brian Coward.