GIS as an Administrative Decision Support System
for Planning at Fayetteville Public Schools
Using GIS for Student
Enrollment Projection
Student Enrollment Projection for 5 Years
8900
8800
8700
8600
8500
8400
Students
8300
8200
8100
8000
7900
7800
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
The Data: Student Enrollment Projection
Gathering data for an enrollment projection for the Fayetteville School District is challenging
because of the geographical nature of the data sources. A substantial portion of the City of
Fayetteville falls within the Fayetteville School District, yet not all the inhabitants reside within the
district. It is estimated that 90% of the residential units are located within the Fayetteville School
District boundaries. The school district is located within Washington County. Based on the County
Assessor’s data, some 39% of the improved, non-vacant residential units are located within the
boundaries of the school district.
The available data sources include:
U.S. Census Bureau statistics for Washington County
Northwest Regional Planning Commission (NWARP)
City of Fayetteville’s Plan 2020
City of Fayetteville Planning Office and the Office of Geographical
Information Systems
Arkansas Geographic Information Office (AGIO)
GeoStor (University of Arkansas CAST )
Arkansas Department of Education (ADE)
Washington County Assessors Office
Washington County 911 Office
Fayetteville School District, and first hand personal observation.
However, not all of the data from the City, Census Bureau and the Regional Planning Commission is
completely accurate or applicable to the Fayetteville School District. In addition, the data obtained
from the ADE may not take into account all of the unique factors that influence area growth at this
time.
Area Platted Housing
Dots are Lots
Squares are units
Location of Platted Housing Developments
The School District is Segmented Reflecting Neighborhoods
Transportation and safety was a major factor in deciding where to segment the district.
Segmented
Student Population
Student Density
Bridgeport Phase III Sub-division: Timeline of Growth
2003 SAT Image
2000 Air Photography
2000-2003 Transition
There are 21 students residing in the Bridgeport sub-division as of January 2004
21 Students
8 Students
As of October 2004 there are 30 students.
5 Students
Students in Bridgeport
New Housing with Number and Type
Depicted
Number of New Housing Units and Lots
Housing Total Assessed Value
Housing Value
.76 miles from nearest school
Distance
Rate of Housing
Bridgeport Analysis
Looking at the 2000 air photograph, Bridgeport was an open field with no activity. The City of
Fayetteville mapped the sub-division with 99 platted single family lots, and presented it to the Fayetteville
School District in September 2002. Some construction was underway, and it is assumed that development
of Bridgeport was sometime in 2001.
In October 2002, some 5 students resided in Bridgeport.
The Fayetteville School District purchased a satellite image of the district and in July 2003. As of
October 2003, some 20 students resided in Bridgeport showing 59 structures completed construction, with
31 open lots.
As of January 2004 there were 21 students residing in the Bridgeport subdivision.
Based on the number of housing units built and the residing students as of October 2003, the student to
housing ratio was 1 student for every 2.8 housing units. The cost of the housing runs from $200,000 to
$300,000, according to the developer. The properties are zoned R-1 or RSF-4.
Thus, from 2000 to 2003, the Bridgeport sub-division went from an un-developed field to a development
of 59 single family houses with 20 residing students.
Note: This analysis is for this specific sub-division.
Multi-Family
Single Family
Housing Types
Commercial & Industrial
Duplex-Triplex & Mobile Homes
Calculating Students from Proposed
Housing
The assumption that “where there are houses, there are students” is a
simple method of projecting student enrollment. Many school districts
simply estimate one new student per dwelling unit. However, the
following study may suggest the type of housing could determine how
many students can be expected for new housing starts.
The Bridgeport Analysis demonstrated the method for examining one
sub-division. The study that follows looks at several sub-divisions and
other forms of housing types to generate a general student-to-housing
ratio.
Student to Housing Ratios: Samples
Census Bureau 2000 Percentage of Poverty Over 20%: The darker, the higher
Schools
Single Family
Mobile Homes
Duplexes
Apartments
Census 2000 Average House Hold Size
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Legend
")
elementary schools
AVE_HH_SZ
4
0.00 - 1.00
1.01 - 2.01
2.02 - 3.00
3.01 - 6.00
major streets
current zones
Census 2000
Results of Samples
Single Family Homes: Of some 13 sample areas, the Student to
Housing Ratio is 1 to 2.6.
Duplexes: Of 10 sample areas, the Student to Housing Ratio is 1 to 3.
Apartments: Of 11 sample areas, the Student to Housing Ratio is 1 to 3.92.
Mobile Home Parks: Of 8 sample areas, the Student to Housing Ratio
is 1 to 2.62.
Note:
The inner part of the City of Fayetteville has a higher concentration of apartments while the
growth of single family homes are being built east and west of the center of the city. The apartments in
the inner area of the city are heavily populated with University of Arkansas students who tend not to have
school aged children. It is therefore assumed that the ratio for the apartments will be higher for the overall
number than the samples suggest above.
Locating Student Growth
One 30 year employee of the Fayetteville School District told me that she use to
track where their elementary students lived by placing pins in a map. We do the
same electronically for the entire district with GIS.
In the past, the district did not have a good idea of which students lived in the
boundaries of the district or a certain attendance zone. In an area where
growth is rapid, this becomes a monumental task. Many school districts
accept intra-district transfers from other school districts. Determining how
many students resided within the district became confusing. With GIS, the
task becomes simple, delivering more accurate information to school
administrators.
Between 2002 and 2003, total enrollment, by simple count, appeared to
increase by 40 students. However, using GIS, the district has an increase of
148 students residing within the school district. With a restrictive transfer
policy, the number of out of district students dropped while students residing
within Fayetteville increased due to a housing boom.
October 1st 2002 Fayetteville Students Residing In District
In Zone 2002
October 1st 2003 Fayetteville Students Residing In District
In Zone 2003
Inner City Area K-12 Students
460
444
440
K-5 Students
431
420
416
417
400
400
389
380
387
360
340
K12_MAR_02 K12_MAY_02 K12_OCT_02 K12_JAN_03 K12_OCT_03 K12_JAN_04 K12_AUG_04
Period
Inner City Area K-5 Students
240
231
K-5 Students
230
220
218
214
210
211
203
200
198
198
190
180
K5_MAR_02 K5_MAY_02 K5_OCT_02 K5_JAN_03 K5_OCT_03 K5_JAN_04 K5_AUG_04
Students in the City
Period
Growth Areas Against K-5 Zones
August 2004 students mapped to new housing points.
Observed Growth
River Meadows 2000
River Meadows 2003
River meadows 2004
There were 3 houses in 2000.
There were 3 students residing in this subdivision in October 2002.
Housing Student Ratio
80
70
69
Number
60
50
Houses
40
Students
30
21
20
10
0
18
10
10
3
0
3
2000
2002
2003
2004
year
There were 21 houses in July of 2003 with 10 students in October 2003.
There were 69 houses in the first half of 2004 with 18 students in October 2004.
The number of students in 2000 and the number of homes in 2002 were assumed.
Ratio study
In District
7,650
7,600
7,550
7,500
In District
7,450
7,400
Location of Where Students
Reside Last Year and This
Year
7,350
2002
2003
Fayetteville City Limits
6,500
6,480
6,460
6,440
6,420
6,400
6,380
6,360
6,340
6,320
Fayetteville
City Limits
2002
2003
Not in District
There was growth in the school
district, specifically within the
City of Fayetteville while the
administration restricted intradistrict transfers.
720
700
680
Not in
District
660
640
620
600
580
2002
2003
School District Data
The first objective in implementing a GIS in a school district is to obtain
accurate student data.
To accomplish this, a map reader (ArcExplorer) was installed on all of the
school secretary’s PC for determining with accuracy the student’s correct
attendance zone and to obtain an accurate address for the student.
This data is entered into the student’s electronic record. This was essential for
geocoding the 8,000 plus students.
Two years ago, a batch mapping of the students was at a 56% map rate. After a
data cleanup, the rate rose to 90%.
The district also utilizes ArcIMS on the district homepage for the public and
local realtors correctly determine if the resident is in the school district or
which attendance zone they reside.
New-comers to the District could locate which attendance zone they reside
in by accessing this information over the internet.
Locator
GIS in Practice: The Jefferson Elementary Issue
As a part of the Fayetteville School District’s Capital Improvement Plan Project, it
was decided that an old elementary school, named Jefferson Elementary, cost more
to maintain than it would to build and maintain a new facility over a ten year period.
In addition to this factor, due to area growth, the district’s student enrollment was
projected to grow by 400 elementary student by the year 2007. So it was decided to
replace Jefferson with a larger elementary school to accommodate this projected
growth. However, after a public meeting on this issue, the poverty of the student
population was raised as a serious concern.
The number of Free & Reduced students, a common standard for determining
economically challenged students or impoverished students, changed the analysis of
the Capital Improvement Plan. Jefferson had a student population with 87% Free
& Reduced students with a district average of 30%. GIS was employed to re-draw
the elementary attendance zones to reduced this percentage. Jefferson elementary
is located in the south part of the City of Fayetteville and in the south and southwest
portion of the school district.
Decision Analysis
For the Jefferson Issue
Growth Management
Equity Consideration
Build school to service the
future growth.
Level the disparity in the
percentage of economically
challenged K-5 students.
Economic Efficiency
Long term capital plan for existing and new resources: Building a new, larger
school to replace an older high maintenance building as a sound economic
decision.
Elementary Attendance Zones
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
K-5 Zones
U
%
January 2004 Students Residing in the Jefferson Zone
Residing in Jefferson
Percent Fayetteville Population Below Poverty Level
Based on US Census 2000
22.7
U
%
U
%
38.8
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
25.0
56.8
U
%
32.7
U
%
24.3
Census Poverty
U
%
11 .7
0.0
10 0 .0
90 .4
0.0
60 .0
14 .2
81 .4
1.3
16 .0
88 .5
43 .4
33 .3
0.0
22 .2
4.0
88 .6
60 .0
33 .3
33 .3
63 .1
0.0
13 .5
54 .9
63 .7
38 .4
73 .4
2.0
33 .3
1.8
3.2
0.0
0.0
26 .6
0.0
14 .9
55 .1
63 .6
65 .9
0.0
24 .4
9.6
10 0 .0
25 .0
0.0
13 .1
0.0
0.0
80 .0
14 .8
14 .2
0.0
53 .3
0.0
6.2
25 .0
33 .3
75 .0
63 .6
33 .3
30 .0
75 .7
10 0 .0
75 .0
45 .0
77 .3
82 .3
93 .1
94 .6
80 .0
88 .8
94 .7
83 .3
88 .8
84 .6
0.0
50 .0
73 .9
Percent of Economically
Challenged Students by
Planning Zone
Percent F&R
0.0
0.0
91 .6
88 .8
U
%
U
%
South East Location
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
U
%
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
U
%
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S#
#
S
S
#
S
#
#
S
S
#
#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S%
#
U
U
%
S
#
#
S
S
#
S
#
U
%
S
#
S
#
U
%
U
%
S
#
S
#
#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
U
%
U
%
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
Plat Housing Points: Potential New Housing Locations
New Housing
35
2
2
2
14
4
16
2
1
2
2
1
6
2
1
7
2
8
44
18
2
19
2
21
6
2
2
6
24
Projected K-5 students over the next 3-4 yrs.
K-5 Student Growth
An Impervious Surface Map of the Jefferson Zone
Jefferson Zone
Streets
Sewer
Water
MAPLE
DICKSON
0
IB
CH
R
A
L
EL
Y
D
AL
MILL
I -54
R AZOR BACK
LAFAYETT
6TH
6T H
15TH
CA
TO
SP
RI
NG
S
I- 540
Slope
71
U
%
U
%
Flood Plain
Planned Streets
This spot was found to meet all of the criteria for a new school site.
West Location
Bus Route Planning
By using GIS to map bus routes, school transportation managers can
better plan bus routes. By using shape files of the students who ride the
buses, proposed streets, and new sub-divisions, school buses can be
routed with greater efficacy.
Perhaps the most effective result of using GIS for school transportation
planning is that it is a good tool for finding weaknesses in transportation
practices and policies.
Using GIS in conjunction with an AVL system for buses, transportation
managers and administrators can have a real-time perspective of what is
happening on the road.
Sidewalk Mapping Project
Stemming from a transportation study related to school bus routing, the
need to know if and where the sidewalks around each elementary
became important for further analysis.
In the Summer of 2003, Fayetteville Schools, in cooperation with the
University of Arkansas and the City of Fayetteville, engaged several
EAST students to map sidewalks within a mile radius of each of the
nine elementary schools within the district.
Elementary One Mile Service Radius by Street Length
Numbers show Oct 2004 K-5 students residing in that area.
K-5 Buffer Zones By Street
January 2004 Sidewalks
A New School ?
Vandergriff Attendance Zone
Happy Hollow Attendance Zone
The stars are new sub-divisions.
The gray area is the town of Goshen.
The red line shows a proposed school demographic area.
Comment on Parcels
Tif Area
Commercial Parcels Comparison
TYPE C parcel points in the
TIF area: Assessed total value
= $11,511,977
The TIF TYPE C parcels
comprise 7.8% of the total in
that part of the City within the
Fayetteville School District.
Tif Comparison
TYPE C parcel points in the City of Fayetteville:
Assessed total value = $147,613,616
$7.5 million total assessed value.
Johnson TIFF
April 2004 Registered Voters and Fayetteville School Board Zones
School Board
The following comments are offered
by some of the Fayetteville School
Board Members and Administrators
regarding the implementation of a
geographical information system in
the district.
Intro to comments
I believe that the GIS system has been instrumental in assisting us
with decision making. It has shown the growth areas of our city and
how this will impact our current school locations. It shows how many
students lives in each zone.
Just recently when the district needed to build a new school this
tool was of major importance since we first planned to build a school
south of town but realized that would be the best location due to
projected growth. Before this system it was just a quessing game.
This tool also helped determine available land and what that land
looked like, what roads it bordered on, etc.
I know that it has been used for bus routes to make the routes more
efficient and faster.
I feel that it has been a major help in all phases of district
planning and projections.
Not being on the school board until three years ago, I can't imagine
how many decisions would have been made without it.
Chris Bell, Fayetteville School Board 2004
Comments
GIS has given us facts to base our decisions on. Before we had the system
we were using the knowledge of people around the district that it seemed
like the right time to build, add on, increase our transportation system
etc. and we had no future vision.
Any group that has responsibility for a geographic area and growth
projections will find a GIS system of benefit. It gives us real data on what
is there now and the ability to project where our growth areas will be. We
have the ability to be proactive instead of reactive.
Initially a GIS implementation is time intensive. The time is so well spent
and well worth our investment. The ability to see our district on the basis
of actual homes locations and population densities has shown us many
things we didn't know before and confirmed some of what we thought we
knew.
Susan Heil, Fayetteville School Board 2004.
Comments
FERPA & GIS
In consideration, and in accordance with the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act (FERPA), there are certain issues one must examine when
publishing information used from data and images obtained through GIS.
The specificity of the data being represented. For example, “How close
can you get, and what can you show”?
One college research director pointed out….
If you are zoomed out far enough that the circle that represents a student covers at least
several houses worth of space that helps especially as geocoding only approximates
locations and has inherent error in it. I would think that if you code the points to indicate
gender or races or so on, you'd want to be even more careful about the scale of presentation
as you are adding more identifying information. Also, in low density rural areas, the zoom out
would have to be greater than in areas of high density housing. Eliminating features such as
small roads and streams that could help place the specific location of a geocoded point also
helps preserve anonymity I would think.
There appears to be no legal or administrative directive on how GIS
and FERPA relate. The key may rest in the definitions found in the
Act.
Appropriate Access to GIS Data: Security
A GIS professional must be aware of what data can be publish for security
reasons. For example, a school may wish to publish a web map showing
bus stop locations using ArcIMS or some other web-mapping service.
Authority on this subject can be found with the Federal Geographic Data
Committee FGDC (www.fgdc.gov), and the National Defense Research
Institute at RAND (www.rand.org). Both organizations produce and offer
guidelines for any public or private entity that intends to publish geospatial
data over the internet.
The guidelines are to extensive to list but a general rule of thumb is whether
the information published can be found through more conventional means
such as a phone book or through direct observation. Another consideration
is the level of security the data should be afforded.