Wednesday, March 25, 2009

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS ... MHHS & HS

Here is a comparison of the various enrollment projections for our schools (MHHS and HS).

 

1) The first was done by Peter Prowda when he was still with the state. He was the state's official enrollment projector until he left and the state eliminated the position. It is the oldest projection being done before the '07 school year. I believe he used a ratio cohort method. I don't know how long a time he averaged the data over, but in the past he used either 3, 5 or 7 years. I suspect his estimates used one of the shorter averaging periods.

 

2) In early ’08, John Boccuzzi used a modified additive cohort method, averaging the last 10 years. As the school population is decreasing, this uses the high years of the past to project the future. He averages rather than doing a trend, and adds rather than ratioing. Both these effects lead to overestimation. I sent him e-mails showing the overestimation.

 

3) The first NESDEC estimate (NESDEC1 ~4/08) used a human to select ratios that looked "reasonable”. In my opinion they also used inflated birth rates.* It also violates the states auditing directions from the Portland case. This is now the official data the NFBOE adopted.

 

4) As a result of my criticisms, NESDEC then did a standard 3-yr cohort survival method (which they claim is widely accepted as the best averaging time) also about 4/08. This is NESDEC2

 

(Average. This is the average of the above four estimates. It was used for comparison with NESDEC3, done a year later, with prior estimates.)

 

5) NESDEC3 is their latest estimate done after the 2008 enrollment data was available (11/08). This apparently uses the same methodology of NESDEC1.

 

The actual enrollment in (October 1) 2007, 2008 was 700, 668 for MHHS and 939, 975 for the HS. The state requires 8 years of projection beyond the submission date.

 

MHHS grades 3-5

Year

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Prowda

698

651

620

610

586

577

527

515

479

484

Boccuzzi

704

702

657

631

630

642

616

600

556

546

NESDEC1

 

662

636

621

592

583

530

524

488

517

NESDEC2

 

660

633

617

579

560

501

497

464

490

Above Av.

701

668¾

636½

619¾

596¾

590½

543½

534

496¾

509¼

NESDEC3

700a

668a

643

621

614

604

557

517

492

510 

                      Estimated from children born                    assumed births

HS grades 9-12

Year

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Prowda

944

950

 978

926

921

910

880

857

819

793

Boccuzzi

948

964

1003

963

963

959

933

914

877

858

NESDEC1

 

952

 987

947

939

929

897

871

844

817

NESDEC2

 

950

 983

943

935

926

893

867

836

806

Above Av.

946

954

987¾

944¾

939½

931

900¾

877¼

844

818½

NESDEC3

939a

975a

1019

983

980

963

930

903

875

838

 
* Actual births in 2005,6 were 126 and 128. NRSDRC estimated 147 for 2007. I called the state and the 2007 actual was 125!
 
Note. Since state reimbursement is dependent on the enrollment, there is an incentive to overestimate.
 
About 2 years ago, you had data showing every undeveloped plot in New Fairfield. From that data I estimated we were 90% developed. Do you have any more recent data? It would be interesting to know how much developable land is left.