Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Today's Sun Article

Expand Messages
  • rit21042 <athierer@earthlink.net>
    The biggest reason we need so many new elementary schools is the classroom reduction for 1&2 grade which was implemented without regard to whether classrooms
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      The biggest reason we need so many new elementary schools is the
      classroom reduction for 1&2 grade which was implemented without
      regard to whether classrooms were available. A standard 500 seat
      school lost 66 seats or 13% of its capacity. Multiply that by 30
      schools, that is 1980 seats or the 3 new schools. These are rough
      numbers because the older Columbia schools and older western schools
      have much smaller capacities. There are actually 38 elem schools
      including Bellows Spring. There are approx a dozen schools with
      lower capacities. The state 25 seat/classroom schools so for state
      purposes we have not lost that capacity, but practically we have
      since the class size is limited to an ave 19 for 1 & 2 grade.
      RIT


      --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "pkbosworth <pkbosworth@h...>"
      <pkbosworth@h...> wrote:
      > I never had a statistics class in college - so if someone could
      help
      > me understand how the margin of error is calculated I would
      > appreciate it.
      >
      > What I would really like to know is how the school system's
      > calculations compare to other growing districts in MD and VA. For
      > instance, how far off is HC vs. Fairfax or Louden? What percentage
      > is each district off for every year in a 1-10 year projection. For
      > example, if the BOE project in 1993 that X number of students would
      > be in the system for 2003 and it is X + 50%, how does that compare
      > to other districts.
      >
      > The statements in this article that they are within the margin of
      > area (by David Drown's estimate), does not tell me if that is only
      > for the next years enrollment projection or is it for 5 years out.
      >
      > If it is within the margin of error, why are there 3 elementary
      > schools needed - one of which was moved up a few years and 1 which
      > completely added at the last minute upon review of the enrollment
      > projections for the next year?
      >
      > Paul Bosworth
      >
      >
      > --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "perlpubl <Perlpubl@e...>"
      > <Perlpubl@e...> wrote:
      > > Another good article from Tricia Bishop in today's Sun --
      > >
      > > That the Board believes Drown's numbers are now acceptable is
      > > disappointing and again points to a lack of accountability.
      > >
      > > I often question David Drown's assertions as he has had numerous
      > > misstatements in the past and lacks credibility. Further, the
      > process
      > > which David Drown has led and the Board endorses is a recipe
      which
      > > ensures mediocrity.
      > >
      > > During the campaign I half-joked we could save hundreds of
      > thousands of
      > > dollars and get more accurate counts/ projections by hiring PTAs
      > as
      > > consultants. At this time I think it should be seriously looked
      > > into.
      > >
      > > Barry Tevelow (another great book -- "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand)
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > > The board also heard a report by David C. Drown,
      > > >
      > > > Drown said that while the enrollment projection process has
      been
      > revamped after scathing criticism, it's not much better.
      > > >
      > > > Some critics have said the model the school system has been
      > using is not doing the job, and a 2-year old review concluded that
      > new software was needed that factored in housing- and birth-rate
      > data along with a new process.
      > > >
      > > > Drown asserted that the data he has collected shows that even
      > with improvements, such as more collaborative efforts with outside
      > agencies, improved spreadsheets, better organization and niftier
      > tools, the rate of error is likely to be the same as it has always
      > been.
      > > >
      > > > The board found the news heartening though after Drown told
      them
      > that by his calculation the school system was well within, and even
      > under, the normal rate of deviation in such predictions.
      > > >
      > > > "The margins of error may not work for planning and growth, but
      > they do work for the school system," said board member Courtney
      > Watson, who campaigned for her position on a platform that included
      > calling for better projections.
      > > >
      > > > "This is the first time we've had an analysis that showed
      > certain industry standard margins of error," Watson said. "I'm not
      > sure we can get any better."
      > > >
      > > > Drown said he compared margins of error by consulting with
      other
      > regions. He said he had determined that the Howard projections were
      > about as accurate as those of the other schools - 1 percent for net
      > error and 5 percent for marginal error.
      > > >
      > > > "The problem is they don't want projections," said board member
      > Virginia Charles. "What they want is a count."
      > > >
    • pkbosworth <pkbosworth@hotmail.com>
      If the classroom reduction created the need for new schools (which I am sure it did), why is it that during the budget process this past fall the school system
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        If the classroom reduction created the need for new schools (which I
        am sure it did), why is it that during the budget process this past
        fall the school system realized it needed a 3rd elementary school
        (the one in the northeast) when the class size reduction occured 3
        years ago?

        Also, in the APFO discussions last spring, Worthington Elementary
        was initially listed as open and then at the last minute it was
        changed to closed due to a change in the projections. This occured
        after the classroom reductions.

        My point is that what is an acceptable margin of error for
        projections and what is the time range for those projections. A 5%
        error for next year's enrollment is a lot different than a 50% error
        for 5 years out. I have never seen figures that show the margin of
        error - do ones exist?

        Paul Bosworth


        --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "rit21042 <athierer@e...>"
        <athierer@e...> wrote:
        > The biggest reason we need so many new elementary schools is the
        > classroom reduction for 1&2 grade which was implemented without
        > regard to whether classrooms were available. A standard 500 seat
        > school lost 66 seats or 13% of its capacity. Multiply that by 30
        > schools, that is 1980 seats or the 3 new schools. These are rough
        > numbers because the older Columbia schools and older western
        schools
        > have much smaller capacities. There are actually 38 elem schools
        > including Bellows Spring. There are approx a dozen schools with
        > lower capacities. The state 25 seat/classroom schools so for
        state
        > purposes we have not lost that capacity, but practically we have
        > since the class size is limited to an ave 19 for 1 & 2 grade.
        > RIT
        >
        >
        > --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "pkbosworth
        <pkbosworth@h...>"
        > <pkbosworth@h...> wrote:
        > > I never had a statistics class in college - so if someone could
        > help
        > > me understand how the margin of error is calculated I would
        > > appreciate it.
        > >
        > > What I would really like to know is how the school system's
        > > calculations compare to other growing districts in MD and VA.
        For
        > > instance, how far off is HC vs. Fairfax or Louden? What
        percentage
        > > is each district off for every year in a 1-10 year projection.
        For
        > > example, if the BOE project in 1993 that X number of students
        would
        > > be in the system for 2003 and it is X + 50%, how does that
        compare
        > > to other districts.
        > >
        > > The statements in this article that they are within the margin
        of
        > > area (by David Drown's estimate), does not tell me if that is
        only
        > > for the next years enrollment projection or is it for 5 years
        out.
        > >
        > > If it is within the margin of error, why are there 3 elementary
        > > schools needed - one of which was moved up a few years and 1
        which
        > > completely added at the last minute upon review of the
        enrollment
        > > projections for the next year?
        > >
        > > Paul Bosworth
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "perlpubl
        <Perlpubl@e...>"
        > > <Perlpubl@e...> wrote:
        > > > Another good article from Tricia Bishop in today's Sun --
        > > >
        > > > That the Board believes Drown's numbers are now acceptable is
        > > > disappointing and again points to a lack of accountability.
        > > >
        > > > I often question David Drown's assertions as he has had
        numerous
        > > > misstatements in the past and lacks credibility. Further,
        the
        > > process
        > > > which David Drown has led and the Board endorses is a recipe
        > which
        > > > ensures mediocrity.
        > > >
        > > > During the campaign I half-joked we could save hundreds of
        > > thousands of
        > > > dollars and get more accurate counts/ projections by hiring
        PTAs
        > > as
        > > > consultants. At this time I think it should be seriously
        looked
        > > > into.
        > > >
        > > > Barry Tevelow (another great book -- "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn
        Rand)
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > > The board also heard a report by David C. Drown,
        > > > >
        > > > > Drown said that while the enrollment projection process has
        > been
        > > revamped after scathing criticism, it's not much better.
        > > > >
        > > > > Some critics have said the model the school system has been
        > > using is not doing the job, and a 2-year old review concluded
        that
        > > new software was needed that factored in housing- and birth-rate
        > > data along with a new process.
        > > > >
        > > > > Drown asserted that the data he has collected shows that
        even
        > > with improvements, such as more collaborative efforts with
        outside
        > > agencies, improved spreadsheets, better organization and niftier
        > > tools, the rate of error is likely to be the same as it has
        always
        > > been.
        > > > >
        > > > > The board found the news heartening though after Drown told
        > them
        > > that by his calculation the school system was well within, and
        even
        > > under, the normal rate of deviation in such predictions.
        > > > >
        > > > > "The margins of error may not work for planning and growth,
        but
        > > they do work for the school system," said board member Courtney
        > > Watson, who campaigned for her position on a platform that
        included
        > > calling for better projections.
        > > > >
        > > > > "This is the first time we've had an analysis that showed
        > > certain industry standard margins of error," Watson said. "I'm
        not
        > > sure we can get any better."
        > > > >
        > > > > Drown said he compared margins of error by consulting with
        > other
        > > regions. He said he had determined that the Howard projections
        were
        > > about as accurate as those of the other schools - 1 percent for
        net
        > > error and 5 percent for marginal error.
        > > > >
        > > > > "The problem is they don't want projections," said board
        member
        > > Virginia Charles. "What they want is a count."
        > > > >
      • rgoodri973@aol.com
        In a message dated 3/1/2003 4:12:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Paul, I think you d have to take either actual enrollment counts (taken Sept 30 every year),
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 3/1/2003 4:12:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, pkbosworth@... writes:

          My point is that what is an acceptable margin of error for
          projections and what is the time range for those projections.  A 5%
          error for next year's enrollment is a lot different than a 50% error
          for 5 years out.  I have never seen figures that show the margin of
          error - do ones exist?

          Paul Bosworth


          Paul,

          I think you'd have to take either actual enrollment counts (taken Sept 30 every year), or the APFO open/closed charts (finalized around late May, early June each year) and then just compare those ACTUAL COUNTS to whatever enrollment projections FROM any past year in question.

          I could be wrong, but I don't think this (error) is something that the DOE would care to draw the public's attention to, so it's probably not something widely distributed -- which may explain why we haven't seen it.  In fact, I think our G&P comte did our own "error analysis" last fall for Worthington comparing actuals to (multiple) past projections, and I believe we used the APFO open/closed chart (May/June) enrollment counts for our analysis. 

          I see your point about a "smallish" error (5%) in the coming year's projections vs. a huge error (50%) five years out -- and it's a valid concern -- but I'd hope that a 50% would not occur!  It would be nice if they published their error analysis because I'd like to learn more about "net" error, and how it's different from marginal error.

          More importantly, I'd like to know more about David Drown's METHODOLOGY for his comparison analysis, where he compared HoCo's margin of error to that of other jurisdictions.  For example, did he contact 3 or 30 other school systems to inquire about their margin of error????  Methodology is so important.  I couldn't tell from the article what these "industry standard margins of error" (Courtney's quote) were ... were they based on Drown's calculations, or were they reported by an industry group or Maryland's board of education?  I'd have to know the methodology of the comparison before I could be convinced that DOE's projections (and errors) are within the norm.

          Diane

        • rit21042 <athierer@earthlink.net>
          Just for fun, here are some numbers. They come from the Sept 30 2001- 2002, 2002-2003 enrollment reports. Total Enrollment ES K-5 in 2001 was 19,562.5 (.5
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Just for fun, here are some numbers. They come from the Sept 30 2001-
            2002, 2002-2003 enrollment reports.
            Total Enrollment ES K-5 in 2001 was 19,562.5 (.5 kid comes from K
            being counted as 1/2) Change from projection -11.5
            Total Enrollment ES K-5 in 2002 was 19,579.5 Change from projection
            was -249.5

            Total enrollment MS in 2001 was 11,138 Change from projection -93
            Total enrollment MS in 2002 was 11,446 Change from projection +86

            Total enrollment HS in 2001 was 13,479 Change from projection +137
            Total enrollment HS in 2002 was 14,080 Change from projection +4.0

            Total all schools Head Count in 2001 was 45,732 change from
            projection -83
            Total all schools Head count in 2002 was 46,650 change from
            projection -227

            Please note most of the time the change from projection was negative,
            fewer kids showed up. Also note total school population went up
            nearly 1000 kids. 600 of those kids were high schoolers approx 300
            were Middle schoolers.
            RIT


            --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, rgoodri973@a... wrote:
            > In a message dated 3/1/2003 4:12:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
            > pkbosworth@h... writes:
            >
            > > My point is that what is an acceptable margin of error for
            > > projections and what is the time range for those projections. A
            5%
            > > error for next year's enrollment is a lot different than a 50%
            error
            > > for 5 years out. I have never seen figures that show the margin
            of
            > > error - do ones exist?
            > >
            > > Paul Bosworth
            > >
            >
            > Paul,
            >
            > I think you'd have to take either actual enrollment counts (taken
            Sept 30
            > every year), or the APFO open/closed charts (finalized around late
            May, early
            > June each year) and then just compare those ACTUAL COUNTS to
            whatever
            > enrollment projections FROM any past year in question.
            >
            > I could be wrong, but I don't think this (error) is something that
            the DOE
            > would care to draw the public's attention to, so it's probably not
            something
            > widely distributed -- which may explain why we haven't seen it.  In
            fact, I
            > think our G&P comte did our own "error analysis" last fall for
            Worthington
            > comparing actuals to (multiple) past projections, and I believe we
            used the
            > APFO open/closed chart (May/June) enrollment counts for our
            analysis. 
            >
            > I see your point about a "smallish" error (5%) in the coming year's
            > projections vs. a huge error (50%) five years out -- and it's a
            valid concern
            > -- but I'd hope that a 50% would not occur!  It would be nice if
            they
            > published their error analysis because I'd like to learn more
            about "net"
            > error, and how it's different from marginal error.
            >
            > More importantly, I'd like to know more about David Drown's
            METHODOLOGY for
            > his comparison analysis, where he compared HoCo's margin of error
            to that of
            > other jurisdictions.  For example, did he contact 3 or 30 other
            school
            > systems to inquire about their margin of error????  Methodology is
            so
            > important.  I couldn't tell from the article what these "industry
            standard
            > margins of error" (Courtney's quote) were ... were they based on
            Drown's
            > calculations, or were they reported by an industry group or
            Maryland's board
            > of education?  I'd have to know the methodology of the comparison
            before I
            > could be convinced that DOE's projections (and errors) are within
            the norm.
            >
            > Diane
          • RSYOSH@aol.com
            In a message dated 3/1/03 3:52:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... How does error break down BY SCHOOL Are those school s which have a historical record of
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 3/1/03 3:52:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, athierer@... writes:


              Please note most of the time the change from projection was negative,
              fewer kids showed up.  Also note total school population went up
              nearly 1000 kids.  600 of those kids were high schoolers approx 300
              were Middle schoolers.
              RIT



              How does error break down BY SCHOOL>  Are those school's which have a historical record of highly inaccurate projections (ie Pointer's Run) getting any better???

              - Becky
            • pkbosworth <pkbosworth@hotmail.com>
              I am not sure what year the projection was done in. For the 2002 projection you are referring to - was it done in 2001? What was the projection in 1997? Paul
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                I am not sure what year the projection was done in. For the 2002
                projection you are referring to - was it done in 2001? What was the
                projection in 1997?

                Paul



                --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "rit21042 <athierer@e...>"
                <athierer@e...> wrote:
                > Just for fun, here are some numbers. They come from the Sept 30
                2001-
                > 2002, 2002-2003 enrollment reports.
                > Total Enrollment ES K-5 in 2001 was 19,562.5 (.5 kid comes from
                K
                > being counted as 1/2) Change from projection -11.5
                > Total Enrollment ES K-5 in 2002 was 19,579.5 Change from
                projection
                > was -249.5
                >
                > Total enrollment MS in 2001 was 11,138 Change from projection -93
                > Total enrollment MS in 2002 was 11,446 Change from projection +86
                >
                > Total enrollment HS in 2001 was 13,479 Change from projection +137
                > Total enrollment HS in 2002 was 14,080 Change from projection +4.0
                >
                > Total all schools Head Count in 2001 was 45,732 change from
                > projection -83
                > Total all schools Head count in 2002 was 46,650 change from
                > projection -227
                >
                > Please note most of the time the change from projection was
                negative,
                > fewer kids showed up. Also note total school population went up
                > nearly 1000 kids. 600 of those kids were high schoolers approx
                300
                > were Middle schoolers.
                > RIT
                >
                >
                > --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, rgoodri973@a... wrote:
                > > In a message dated 3/1/2003 4:12:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                > > pkbosworth@h... writes:
                > >
                > > > My point is that what is an acceptable margin of error for
                > > > projections and what is the time range for those projections.
                A
                > 5%
                > > > error for next year's enrollment is a lot different than a 50%
                > error
                > > > for 5 years out. I have never seen figures that show the
                margin
                > of
                > > > error - do ones exist?
                > > >
                > > > Paul Bosworth
                > > >
                > >
                > > Paul,
                > >
                > > I think you'd have to take either actual enrollment counts
                (taken
                > Sept 30
                > > every year), or the APFO open/closed charts (finalized around
                late
                > May, early
                > > June each year) and then just compare those ACTUAL COUNTS to
                > whatever
                > > enrollment projections FROM any past year in question.
                > >
                > > I could be wrong, but I don't think this (error) is something
                that
                > the DOE
                > > would care to draw the public's attention to, so it's probably
                not
                > something
                > > widely distributed -- which may explain why we haven't seen it. 
                In
                > fact, I
                > > think our G&P comte did our own "error analysis" last fall for
                > Worthington
                > > comparing actuals to (multiple) past projections, and I believe
                we
                > used the
                > > APFO open/closed chart (May/June) enrollment counts for our
                > analysis. 
                > >
                > > I see your point about a "smallish" error (5%) in the coming
                year's
                > > projections vs. a huge error (50%) five years out -- and it's a
                > valid concern
                > > -- but I'd hope that a 50% would not occur!  It would be nice if
                > they
                > > published their error analysis because I'd like to learn more
                > about "net"
                > > error, and how it's different from marginal error.
                > >
                > > More importantly, I'd like to know more about David Drown's
                > METHODOLOGY for
                > > his comparison analysis, where he compared HoCo's margin of
                error
                > to that of
                > > other jurisdictions.  For example, did he contact 3 or 30 other
                > school
                > > systems to inquire about their margin of error????  Methodology
                is
                > so
                > > important.  I couldn't tell from the article what
                these "industry
                > standard
                > > margins of error" (Courtney's quote) were ... were they based on
                > Drown's
                > > calculations, or were they reported by an industry group or
                > Maryland's board
                > > of education?  I'd have to know the methodology of the
                comparison
                > before I
                > > could be convinced that DOE's projections (and errors) are
                within
                > the norm.
                > >
                > > Diane
              • rit21042 <athierer@earthlink.net>
                Te Sept 30 official enrollment reports would be using the projection data from the previous spring. You would have to go to other sources for long term
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Te Sept 30 official enrollment reports would be using the projection
                  data from the previous spring. You would have to go to other sources
                  for long term projection data. A suggestion is going to old copies
                  of redistricting booklets which project out for 5 years. You might e
                  able to obtain them from public information.
                  RIT



                  --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "pkbosworth <pkbosworth@h...>"
                  <pkbosworth@h...> wrote:
                  > I am not sure what year the projection was done in. For the 2002
                  > projection you are referring to - was it done in 2001? What was
                  the
                  > projection in 1997?
                  >
                  > Paul
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "rit21042 <athierer@e...>"
                  > <athierer@e...> wrote:
                  > > Just for fun, here are some numbers. They come from the Sept 30
                  > 2001-
                  > > 2002, 2002-2003 enrollment reports.
                  > > Total Enrollment ES K-5 in 2001 was 19,562.5 (.5 kid comes from
                  > K
                  > > being counted as 1/2) Change from projection -11.5
                  > > Total Enrollment ES K-5 in 2002 was 19,579.5 Change from
                  > projection
                  > > was -249.5
                  > >
                  > > Total enrollment MS in 2001 was 11,138 Change from projection -93
                  > > Total enrollment MS in 2002 was 11,446 Change from projection +86
                  > >
                  > > Total enrollment HS in 2001 was 13,479 Change from projection
                  +137
                  > > Total enrollment HS in 2002 was 14,080 Change from projection
                  +4.0
                  > >
                  > > Total all schools Head Count in 2001 was 45,732 change from
                  > > projection -83
                  > > Total all schools Head count in 2002 was 46,650 change from
                  > > projection -227
                  > >
                  > > Please note most of the time the change from projection was
                  > negative,
                  > > fewer kids showed up. Also note total school population went up
                  > > nearly 1000 kids. 600 of those kids were high schoolers approx
                  > 300
                  > > were Middle schoolers.
                  > > RIT
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, rgoodri973@a... wrote:
                  > > > In a message dated 3/1/2003 4:12:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                  > > > pkbosworth@h... writes:
                  > > >
                  > > > > My point is that what is an acceptable margin of error for
                  > > > > projections and what is the time range for those
                  projections.
                  > A
                  > > 5%
                  > > > > error for next year's enrollment is a lot different than a
                  50%
                  > > error
                  > > > > for 5 years out. I have never seen figures that show the
                  > margin
                  > > of
                  > > > > error - do ones exist?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Paul Bosworth
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Paul,
                  > > >
                  > > > I think you'd have to take either actual enrollment counts
                  > (taken
                  > > Sept 30
                  > > > every year), or the APFO open/closed charts (finalized around
                  > late
                  > > May, early
                  > > > June each year) and then just compare those ACTUAL COUNTS to
                  > > whatever
                  > > > enrollment projections FROM any past year in question.
                  > > >
                  > > > I could be wrong, but I don't think this (error) is something
                  > that
                  > > the DOE
                  > > > would care to draw the public's attention to, so it's probably
                  > not
                  > > something
                  > > > widely distributed -- which may explain why we haven't seen
                  it. 
                  > In
                  > > fact, I
                  > > > think our G&P comte did our own "error analysis" last fall for
                  > > Worthington
                  > > > comparing actuals to (multiple) past projections, and I believe
                  > we
                  > > used the
                  > > > APFO open/closed chart (May/June) enrollment counts for our
                  > > analysis. 
                  > > >
                  > > > I see your point about a "smallish" error (5%) in the coming
                  > year's
                  > > > projections vs. a huge error (50%) five years out -- and it's a
                  > > valid concern
                  > > > -- but I'd hope that a 50% would not occur!  It would be nice
                  if
                  > > they
                  > > > published their error analysis because I'd like to learn more
                  > > about "net"
                  > > > error, and how it's different from marginal error.
                  > > >
                  > > > More importantly, I'd like to know more about David Drown's
                  > > METHODOLOGY for
                  > > > his comparison analysis, where he compared HoCo's margin of
                  > error
                  > > to that of
                  > > > other jurisdictions.  For example, did he contact 3 or 30 other
                  > > school
                  > > > systems to inquire about their margin of error????  Methodology
                  > is
                  > > so
                  > > > important.  I couldn't tell from the article what
                  > these "industry
                  > > standard
                  > > > margins of error" (Courtney's quote) were ... were they based
                  on
                  > > Drown's
                  > > > calculations, or were they reported by an industry group or
                  > > Maryland's board
                  > > > of education?  I'd have to know the methodology of the
                  > comparison
                  > > before I
                  > > > could be convinced that DOE's projections (and errors) are
                  > within
                  > > the norm.
                  > > >
                  > > > Diane
                • rit21042 <athierer@earthlink.net>
                  Pointers Run projected pop for 2002 was 94 students too high. It was the worst overestimate.Also greatly overestimated were Gorman Crossing 65 and Waverly 73.
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 3, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Pointers Run projected pop for 2002 was 94 students too high. It was
                    the worst overestimate.Also greatly overestimated were Gorman
                    Crossing 65 and Waverly 73. Moderately overestimated were Elkridge,
                    Forest Ridge, Guilford, Hammond, Swansfield, and West Friendship (20-
                    30 students). Underestimated Schools included Long Fellow (41),
                    Laurel Woods (34)Talbot Springs (30) Stevens Forest (28) St John's
                    Lane (23) Hollifield (24). Of these only Hollifield is in a high
                    growth area.
                    RIT

                    --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, RSYOSH@a... wrote:
                    > In a message dated 3/1/03 3:52:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
                    > athierer@e... writes:
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Please note most of the time the change from projection was
                    negative,
                    > > fewer kids showed up. Also note total school population went up
                    > > nearly 1000 kids. 600 of those kids were high schoolers approx
                    300
                    > > were Middle schoolers.
                    > > RIT
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    > How does error break down BY SCHOOL> Are those school's which have
                    a
                    > historical record of highly inaccurate projections (ie Pointer's
                    Run) getting
                    > any better???
                    >
                    > - Becky
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.