Cupertino Union School District Cupertino, CA …...Cupertino Union School District 10301 Vista...

!"#$%&"!'&(!"#$%&$'!(&)*$!+'!(,%!-,*$.'!/"!01123411+2!!5!!6,78!9:;2<!31;40+::!!5!!=>.%$8!9:;2<!31;40+:;

3 West 37th Avenue, Suite 7, San Mateo, CA 94403-4470 • Phone: (650) 345-9765

Superintendent and Board of Education December 10, 2018 Cupertino Union School District 10301 Vista Drive Cupertino, CA 95014-2091 Dear Superintendent and Board of Education: This is the concluding documentation to our latest forecast update. We begin with the summary below and then provide some background information. Subsequent sections follow the order of the tables, starting with the updated projections in Tables 1 and 2 and then the underlying factors to those numbers in Tables 3 to 8. The appendices provide more detail for those who want to delve further into the data. This is a more data-heavy report than we normally include in “simplified” studies, but the severe recent enrollment decline justifies the additional detail provided. For those wanting a less thorough understanding of this forecast update, we recommend reading the summary below and then focusing on Table 1 (on page 4), especially for the larger classes graduating from eighth, and on Table 3 (page 11), which shows how significant the shift to decline has become in all five middle school attendance areas. Projections Summary Total enrollment in the Cupertino Union School District (henceforth CUSD or district) rose by over 5,500 students, or more than 40%, in the two decades up to the 2013-14 school year and then abruptly shifted into decline, in losing over 1,800 students, or nearly 10%, in the last five years. More than two-thirds of that reduction occurred in just the last two years, so the degree of decline has rapidly increased. Soaring housing costs are assumed to be the main cause of this radical shift, with fewer young families able to move into the district and the continuing families aging past the childbearing years. So as large as the projected drop is in the next four years, in falling by another 1,134 students, that is by a smaller extent than in the recent past and thus could be an overly optimistic forecast. Greater decline is possible. The updated forecast numbers have the total CUSD enrollment falling by 461 students from just October 2018 to October 2019, with smaller but still significant additional reductions in each of the following three years, before rebounding nominally in 2023.1 The projected low point is reached in 2022, with a cumulative decline by 1,134 students from the “current” (October 4, 2018) total. The net projected difference for five years hence is for the total to be down by nearly 1,100 students.

1 All enrollment and student population figures covered in this report are based on student files provided to EPC by the CUSD,

except that preschool SDC (Special Day Class, a.k.a., special education) students and NPS (Non-Public-School) students are excluded. All other SDC students, along with a nominal number of Home Study students, are included. Please note that whenever just a year is stated, such as 2023, the reference is for, or in the twelve months to, early October of that year.

Projected Enrollments from 2018 to 2023 Cupertino Union School District

Enrollment Projection Consultants

This projected decline occurs in both grade levels, but the larger reductions should be at the middle school level. The current distribution through the grades is a key reason for this, with the largest classes in the upper grades. Those classes will be graduating out of the CUSD in the next four years. The middle school total falls by 179 students in 2019 and a cumulative 702 to 2022 as a result. The elementary level is forecast to have 282 fewer students next year and a cumulative reduction by 432 to 2022, or by less than two-thirds of the middle school decline, despite the latter covering half as many grades. Only modest further changes to the grade level totals are forecast in 2023. Lower-than-projected kindergarten totals in especially 2022 and 2023, however, could create greater decline at the elementary level. (Birth figures relevant to those school years are not available yet.) These falling grade-level totals will not be evenly distributed across the CUSD, and where the greater “resident” (home school) losses are forecast has changed. Our recent studies had the elementary reductions concentrated in the attendance areas that are not in the northeastern part of the district, with some of the greatest losses in the south. Most of the higher single-grade totals (the last part of a “bubble”) in the southern end of the CUSD have now graduated out of those elementaries, however, so these schools have only modest further declines forecast henceforth. The more significant resident elementary reductions from 2018 instead occur in the northeastern and northwestern attendance areas. The Stocklmeir, West Valley, Stevens Creek and Lincoln regions are each projected to have between 33 and 39 fewer students next year. Stocklmeir then has only minor additional change expected in the resident total in subsequent years, but that is a shift from our previous forecast for growth there. Declines to 2023 by at least 60 students, however, are projected for the Nimitz, West Valley, Montclair, Stevens Creek and Lincoln attendance areas. While the Collins and Eisenhower regions are projected to gain significant elementary student numbers by 2023, due mainly to new housing in those locations, that will be insufficient to offset the aggregate decline in the other elementary areas. That same “bubble” that already has graduated out of the southern elementaries is now in the middle school grades for Kennedy and Miller, with correspondingly large negative impacts as those amounts graduate from eighth grade in the next few years. Kennedy’s region is projected to have 82 fewer resident middle school students next year and a cumulative decline by 299 in five years. Miller’s area has a relatively small drop by 28 forecast for 2019 but loses 272 to 2023. Much smaller net changes (by under 100) are forecast in five years for the Cupertino, Hyde and Lawson areas. Background Information We have been providing neighborhood-specific forecast studies for the CUSD since 2006. My firm specializes in these in-depth studies, where each key component of the recent trends is determined, analyzed, compared to the knowledge gained from our experience in over 350 previous studies, and then projected. To do this, we drove literally every street in our first study of the CUSD region to learn the community and divide it into suitable planning areas. Each of those areas represents a single dominant housing type wherever feasible, including by subjective price levels and average home and parcel sizes. We have found that even subtle differences in residential type and value can generate divergent student trends in some districts. As you will read in more detail later in this report, total enrollments in the CUSD and most other South Bay school districts had severe, mostly unexpected shifts to the negative a few years ago. For some districts this was a sudden change from growth to decline, while others went from having stable or moderately declining totals to more significant losses. Soaring housing costs and rents, to a degree that no professionals or enrollment demographers had predicted, are believed to be the main cause of these negative changes. In terms of projections for the CUSD, while all of our earlier forecasts are considered statistically accurate for the one-to-three-year totals, our latest estimates did not foresee the scope of the decline that has just occurred. Last year’s forecast called for a 478-student decline to the current total, which was by a smaller amount than the 585-student drop in the prior year, but greater than any other one-year loss in decades. The actual total instead fell by 648, or 3.6%, which is by nearly 1% more than expected. That is at the outer edge of our “real potential range”.



District-Wide Projected Enrollments The total projected district enrollment (in TK-8, excluding NPS) falls by 1,134 students in the next four years, with over two-thirds of that (784) in just the next 24 months (see far right column in the bold box in Table 1 on page 4). The expected drop from October 2018 to October 2019 is by 461 students. The reduction in 2019 is by another 323. Smaller annual loses in the 170s are forecast in each of the following two years, resulting in a decline from the current total of 17,353 students to 16,219 in 2022. That is 525 students below what we had forecast for 2022 in our last study. While we rarely have such notable forecast differences between studies only one year apart for the same district, all of the trend findings and expectations discussed in this report justify these lower numbers. A small rebound by 38 students is projected from 2022 to 2023, but there is a wide-potential range for what could occur that far into the future. Further decline in the birth totals since the last year of available data (2016) and/or fewer new housing units being built than are projected could instead create continued enrollment decline. There also is the alternative possibility of more new housing being completed, especially at the Vallco site, which could make the enrollment rebound more notable. We discuss these long-range issues in later sections of this report, but even the most optimistic scenario (with around a 90% probability) has over 450 fewer students in 2023 than at present. The projected four-year decline occurs in both grade levels, but with much larger net reductions at the secondary level after 2019. The differences for 2019 are 282 fewer elementary (TK-5) and 179 fewer middle school (6-8) students. Thereafter, however, much smaller further annual losses are forecast at the elementary than secondary level, including by just 74 (356 cumulative) versus 249 (428 cumulative) in 2020. The total projected reductions to 2022 are by 432 elementary and 702 middle school students. The main reasons for these grade-level variances are (1) extrapolations of the current enrollment distribution through the grades and (2) the projected kindergarten amounts (with the decline in the latter explained later). Until a year ago, your district had a longtime pattern of significant growth in each student body class as it graduated from kindergarten into first grade and from first grade into second grade, with more modest gains and losses in the class advancements through the remaining grades. From 2016 to 2017, however, while notable growth continued for the net graduating amounts into first and second, there were losses in all subsequent grade advancements. Then in the last year the gains from the “net advancements” into first and second became much less, while the losses for the graduating totals into many of the other grades became more significant. The net result of such changes, if all other factors had been constant, is that there now should be the most students in second grade and the smallest totals in seventh and eighth. This is not, however, the situation with the current student distribution. The largest current total instead is in eighth, at 2,061, with the next largest being in fifth, at 2,011. The only other two totals above 1,950 are in sixth and seventh. All of the classes below fifth have much smaller amounts and the continuation of the latest net advancement trends should reduce those totals to only the low 1,800s or the 1,700s when they reach sixth. The 1,903 students now in second, for example, are forecast to become just 1,783 sixth graders in 2022. That is a huge decline from the totals above 1,950 that are currently in fifth through eighth. Next year’s middle school total will lose that largest class that is now in eighth, but will gain the next largest class that is now in fifth. This along with other factors results in the projected decline by 179 secondary students in 2019. The elementary level, by contrast, will lose that same second largest current class of over 2,000 students that is now in fifth, while being forecast to add another kindergarten total in only the upper 1,600s. This and other factors result in a projected elementary decline by 282 for next year. In subsequent years, the graduating upward of the differences in the by-grade totals will have a greater negative impact on the middle school total. None of the largest classes will still be in the elementary grades, which lowers the degree of impact between the graduating fifth grade totals and incoming kindergarten totals. The secondary



level, by contrast, will continue to have much larger graduating totals from eighth than incoming for sixth until after 2022. It is only when the last of those four largest classes will have graduated from eighth that the totals could be essentially stabilizing in both grade levels, but this only would be true if the kindergarten total stays in the 1,600s. Projected Resident Student Populations by Existing Attendance Areas The following explanation of the Table 2A data is mostly repeated from past reports. Readers who already are familiar with the differences between resident and enrollment numbers may want to jump to “Key Findings in the Latest Shifts by Attendance Area” at the bottom of page 5. This forecast is again based on analyses of where the students live (the resident population2) rather than the schools they happen to attend (the attending enrollment). Resident populations differ from enrollments mainly

2 “Resident” throughout this report means physical resident, not legal resident.

TK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2015* 314 1,788 1,818 2,051 2,131 2,078 2,182 2,219 2,227 2,116 12,362 6,562 18,924

2018* 286 1,667 1,771 1,903 1,930 1,812 2,011 1,959 1,953 2,061 11,380 5,973 17,353

2019 290 1,692 1,759 1,823 1,880 1,885 1,769 1,955 1,926 1,913 11,098 5,794 16,8922020 281 1,636 1,792 1,831 1,801 1,841 1,842 1,726 1,924 1,895 11,024 5,545 16,569

2021 279 1,624 1,752 1,882 1,836 1,780 1,816 1,811 1,713 1,902 10,969 5,426 16,3952022 281 1,637 1,738 1,840 1,887 1,814 1,751 1,783 1,794 1,694 10,948 5,271 16,219

2023 281 1,639 1,752 1,826 1,846 1,868 1,787 1,718 1,767 1,773 10,999 5,258 16,257

Total Grade-Level Enrollment Change in One Year, to October of 2019 -282 -179 -461Total Grade-Level Enrollment Change in Two Years, to October of 2020 -356 -428 -784Total Grade-Level Enrollment Change in Three Years, to October of 2021 -411 -547 -958

Total Grade-Level Enrollment Change in Four Years, to October of 2022 -432 -702 -1,134Total Grade-Level Enrollment Change in Five Years, to October of 2023 -381 -715 -1,096

Real Potential Lower Total in 2019 (essentially -1%, especially due to potential deviation in TK and K**) 16,720Real Potential Higher Total in 2019 (essentially +1%, especially due to potential deviation in TK and K**) 17,060

Real Potential Lower Total in 2023 (essentially -5%, especially if fewer new residences occur at the Vallco site) 15,450Real Potential Higher Total in 2023 (essentially +4%, especially if more new residences occur at the Vallco site) 16,900

Projected Students from New Housing:

2023 15 87 95 101 95 88 82 75 67 60 563 202 765

* Actual enrollments in files provided to EPC by the CUSD.** Transitional kindergarten and kindergarten fluctuations from the forecast in any one year can be more significant than are

likely on an ongoing basis.Note: Projections and real potential ranges are for (1) currently operating facilities and programs and (2) generally stableenrollments in total at local charter and private schools. The "real potential" ranges cover essentially 80% probabilities;there are approximately 10% possibilities for each of even lower and higher numbers than the totals within these ranges.(3) Figures include SDC (Special Ed.) and a few Home Study students and exclude NPS (Non-Public-School) students.

6-8 TK-5

(with color highlighting of orange for class totals that were or will be over 2,000 when in sixth grade, of green for Table 1: Actual and Projected Students by Grade and Grade Level, October of 2018 to 2023

Total Enrollment by Grade GroupActual and Projected

Oct. ofEarly Actual and Projected Total Enrollment by Grade (including SDC)

Total

those over 1,900 when in sixth grade and pink for those that will be significantly below 1,900 when in sixth grade)



because of (1) known intra-district enrollment (between CUSD attendance areas) and (2) known incoming inter-district enrollment (from addresses that are outside the CUSD). By coding all of the student addresses to planning areas that represent various housing types and locations, we have been able to identify and evaluate how the student population is evolving in each situation. We flip back-and-forth between these “resident” and "enrollment" amounts in the text below and it is important to remember the distinction between these two types. Table 2A, on page 6, presents the key resident and enrollment findings and projections for each attendance area. Understanding the Data in Tables 2A and 2B Table 2A contains two sets of data. The figures on the left (under "Actual Resident and Enrollment part”) show (1) the amounts by which the resident school totals changed in the last year and (2) how the current enrollment at each school differs from the resident population. There are 362 CUSD-enrolled K-5 students (i.e., excluding TK because that is not assigned by these attendance areas), for instance, with home addresses in the Montclaire region, which is a decline by 22 from a year ago, as is shown in the table. Montclaire’s current K-5 enrollment, however, is 429, which is 67 more than the resident total. This net difference is shown by the “67” in the top row of the “Attending Adjust” column in the table. The second set of data, on the right side of Table 2A (under "Projected Resident Student part”), has the projected resident amounts. These are not projected enrollments. They do indicate, however, the extent to which the current areas might continue to be suitable without any revisions. In Montclair’s case, the resident K-5 total could be down by twelve next year and cumulative amounts of 30 in two years and 61 in 2023, as is shown in the columns on the right side of the table. Four special circumstances underlying the “Attending Adjust” figures should be noted. The first is that the “Special Schools” (Faria, Murdock-Portal and McAuliffe) do not have resident populations because they are open to students from throughout the district. Those enrollments, along with a program at Meyerholz that also is open to all students, are a major reason why many of the other schools have large negative figures in their “Attending Adjust” amounts. The second circumstance is in the attendance patterns between Eisenhower and De Vargas, where the apartments between I-280 and Albany Drive are officially in Eisenhower but the policy since early 2009 has been to assign most of the new renters to De Vargas instead. This area is included in the De Vargas resident numbers accordingly. The third special situation is a recent effective change between Lawson and Kennedy, with all of the Lincoln elementary area now treated as part of the Kennedy region. The fourth exception is an effective change between Cupertino and Lawson, with all of the Collins elementary area now treated as part of the Lawson region. Although both of these middle school changes are for voluntary choices by students, virtually all of those students are now making such requests to attend Kennedy and Lawson, respectively.3 Table 2B, on page 8, is similar in structure to Table 2A, but shows what the result could be for the resident Eisenhower and De Vargas numbers if the future developments on the south side of eastern Stevens Creek Blvd. are shifted into the De Vargas attendance area. Key Findings in the Latest Shifts by Attendance Area The three largest resident elementary reductions in the last year occurred in the Stocklmeir (-64), Sedgwick (-55) and Nimitz (-55) areas, which is shocking because these had been among the most stable or student-growth areas in the recent past. We did not foresee this change, with projected differences from 2017 to 2018 by fewer than five students in each. As you will read in more detail later, the radical change in the last year was a major reduction in student numbers from apartments and those complexes are concentrated in these three attendance regions and in the De Vargas area (in the portion unofficially transferred from Eisenhower). The De Vargas area also had a major student reduction (-44) in 2018, but in this case a larger part of that decline had been projected.

3 There are three other locations (from Garden Gate to Nimitz, from Eisenhower to Sedgwick and from Hyde to Lawson) where

the implemented boundaries differ from the official areas, but the two elementary shifts occurred long ago and the Hyde-to-Lawson shift occurred in 2015 in a pending-housing location, so none of these have any residual grandfathering impacts.



School

Montclaire -22West Valley -16Nimitz -55Stocklmeir -64

Stevens Creek -13Lincoln -27Garden Gate -5Collins -41

Eaton 2Sedgwick -55Eisenhower* -35De Vargas* -44

Regnart -45Blue Hills 8Meyerholz 13Muir -1Dilworth -11

FariaMurdock-PortalMcAuliffe K-5Home Study K-5

Elem. Total*** -411

Shift fromOct. 2017

Table 2A: Actual Resident-to-Attendance Figures and Projected Resident Students by Attendance Area(with color highlighting for differences of 30+: growth in yellow, reduction in orange, and brown for a mix of both)

Actual Resident and Enrollment part

ResidentActual

Resident Studentin the Relevant Grades Change to Oct. of

2019 2020 2023 2019 2020 2023

362 67 429 350 332 301 -12 -30 -61599 -45 554 564 559 521 -35 -40 -78716 -159 557 702 700 648 -14 -16 -68

1497 -391 1106 1458 1466 1452 -39 -31 -45

648 -118 530 615 586 536 -33 -62 -112717 -141 576 680 677 605 -37 -40 -112724 -148 576 713 712 719 -11 -12 -5710 -8 702 682 657 857 -28 -53 147

628 -131 497 624 622 620 -4 -6 -8837 -220 617 832 827 834 -5 -10 -3762 -189 573 758 821 857 -4 59 95734 -260 474 739 732 716 5 -2 -18

392 6 398 380 374 342 -12 -18 -50396 -58 338 387 375 374 -9 -21 -22524 247 771 501 489 524 -23 -35 0322 -29 293 306 301 305 -16 -21 -17353 80 433 342 336 332 -11 -17 -21

NA 696 696 NA NA NANA 570 570 NA NA NANA 398 398 NA NA NANA 6 6 NA NA NA

10921 173 11094 10633 10566 10543 -288 -355 -378

AttendingStudentsResident

Table 2A: Actual Resident-to-Attendance Figures and Projected Resident Students by Attendance Area(with color highlighting for differences of 30+: growth in yellow, reduction in orange, and brown for a mix of both)

Actual Oct. 4, 2018 (excl. TK)*

Projected Resident Student part

Oct. Students (excl. TK)

Actual Resident and Enrollment part

ProjectedProjected Resident

Adjust**Attending

Enrollment

Other K-5**** 22

Cupertino* -112Kennedy* -83Lawson* -36

Hyde -4Miller -57

McAuliffe 6-8Home Study K-5

Middle Total*** -292

173 -173 NA 175 178 174 2 5 1

1438 -80 1358 1463 1363 1344 25 -75 -941235 -36 1199 1153 1116 936 -82 -119 -2991065 73 1138 1027 981 1077 -38 -84 12

1122 -124 998 1067 1055 1030 -55 -67 -921045 146 1191 1017 954 773 -28 -91 -272

NA 77 77 NA NA NANA 12 12 NA NA NA

5905 68 5973 5727 5469 5160 -178 -436 -745

Other 6-8**** 1

* Actual totals and all other figures are based on student records provided to EPC by the CUSD, but there are three notable exceptions to these resident-to-attending-differences. One such difference is from the apartments south of Albany Drive in San Jose, which officially are in the Eisenhower area but administratively were reassigned in 2009 to DeVargas. We have included those students in the DeVargas resident numbers. The second is for the portion of the Lincoln elementary region that is officially assigned to Lawson at the middle school level, but from which the students can choose Kennedy instead. As nearly 100% of those students choose Kennedy, we are including that area in the Kennedy resident numbers. The third is the part of the Collins elementary region that is officially assigned to Cupertino at the middle school level, but from which students can choose Lawson instead. As nearly 100% choose Lawson, that area is in the Lawson resident counts.

** School net attending adjustments include (1) intra-district attendance, (2) incoming inter-district attendance (IDA) and (3) students at unlocatable addresses. Outgoing inter-district attendance was not identified. See Appendix A for more info.

*** Elementary and middle school resident totals exclude the "other" students. Elementary total also excludes TK.

**** "Other" represents incoming inter-district students and a few students listed at residentially unlocatable addresses.

68 -68 NA 68 77 98 0 9 30

* Actual totals and all other figures are based on student records provided to EPC by the CUSD, but there are three notable exceptions to these resident-to-attending-differences. One such difference is from the apartments south of Albany Drive in San Jose, which officially are in the Eisenhower area but administratively were reassigned in 2009 to DeVargas. We have included those students in the DeVargas resident numbers. The second is for the portion of the Lincoln elementary region that is officially assigned to Lawson at the middle school level, but from which the students can choose Kennedy instead. As nearly 100% of those students choose Kennedy, we are including that area in the Kennedy resident numbers. The third is the part of the Collins elementary region that is officially assigned to Cupertino at the middle school level, but from which students can choose Lawson instead. As nearly 100% choose Lawson, that area is in the Lawson resident counts.

** School net attending adjustments include (1) intra-district attendance, (2) incoming inter-district attendance (IDA) and (3) students at unlocatable addresses. Outgoing inter-district attendance was not identified. See Appendix A for more info.

*** Elementary and middle school resident totals exclude the "other" students. Elementary total also excludes TK.

**** "Other" represents incoming inter-district students and a few students listed at residentially unlocatable addresses.



Key Findings in the Projections by Attendance Area The projected changes differ greatly by attendance area and where the largest elementary losses are forecast have shifted in this update. Previously most of the major recent and projected elementary declines were in the south. The last part of a “bubble” graduating upward from the elementary grades and into the secondary grades was causing notable resident reductions for Regnart, Blue Hills, Meyerholz, Muir and Dilworth.4 That bubble is now mostly out of the elementary grades in those areas, so their projected declines henceforth are smaller than before. The regions that still have a notable bubble remaining in the upper elementary grades are now entirely in the northeast and northwest.5 This results in those areas having the largest projected pending resident elementary declines. The four highest projected elementary losses for 2019 occur in the Stocklmeir (-39), West Valley (-35), Stevens Creek (-33) and Lincoln (-37) regions. Stocklmeir then has only minor additional change expected in the resident total in subsequent years, but that is a shift from our previous forecast for growth there. The largest cumulative elementary reductions to 2020 occur for West Valley (-40), Stevens Creek (-62) and Lincoln (-40) in the northwest and, temporarily, for the Collins region (-53) in the center of the district and Meyerholz (-35) in the south, but both of the latter have rebounding totals thereafter. While elementary area estimates for five years hence have a wide range of possible deviation, especially for the kindergarten evolution, the greatest declines to 2023 are expected in the north and northwest. Each of the Nimitz, West Valley, Montclair, Stevens Creek and Lincoln regions could be down by more than 60 elementary students then. Nonetheless, because of significant recent declines, plus the small-to-moderate projected further losses, four of the five southern elementary regions (for Regnart, Blue Hills, Muir and Dilworth) are forecast to have fewer than 380 resident students each after 2019. Aside from Montclair’s area, no other region is projected to have fewer than 500 elementary students. Significant student gains to 2023 are forecast in the Collins and Eisenhower regions, with new housing being the reason for both. For Eisenhower, this growth could be greatly reduced by shifting to De Vargas the planned apartments on the south side of Stevens Creek Blvd. This would continue similar (but never formally adopted) boundary adjustments in the past. The potential results are shown in Table 2B above. Since the current Eisenhower region could have significant further student growth after 2023, when that school’s portion of the Vallco redevelopment receives additional housing, this possible adjustment with De Vargas may be warranted.

4 The highest part of this recent “bubble” in the student distribution through the grades, which can be seen in grades 5-8 in the

top row of Table 1 on page 4, already has almost graduated out of the CUSD, with only the class now in eighth remaining. 5 Current figures by individual grade for each attendance area are provided in Appendix A1 for the elementaries and Appendix

A2 for the middle schools, with the latter also showing the relevant totals in grades 3-5. The remaining Appendix A tables provide similar current figures, along with potential amounts for 2019, but without SDC (Special Education) students included.

School

Eisenhower* -35De Vargas* -44

* This is with all existing and future apartments and condos south of Stevens Creek Blvd. that are east and southeast of "The Plaza" condos (which are on Albany Circle and remaining in Eisenhower) being assigned to De Vargas.

Table 2B: Adjusted Figures to 2020 if Future Housing on Stevens Creek Blvd. is Shifted to De Vargas Area*(with color highlighting for differences of 30+: growth in yellow, reduction in orange, and brown for a mix of both)

"Actual" Resident and Enrollment part (same

ActualResident

Shift fromOct. 2017

data as no current students in shifted area)

Resident Studentin the Relevant Grades Change to Oct. of

2019 2020 2023 2019 2020 2023

762 -189 573 758 776 772 -4 14 10734 -260 474 739 777 801 5 43 67

* This is with all existing and future apartments and condos south of Stevens Creek Blvd. that are east and southeast of "The Plaza" condos (which are on Albany Circle and remaining in Eisenhower) being assigned to De Vargas.

Table 2B: Adjusted Figures to 2020 if Future Housing on Stevens Creek Blvd. is Shifted to De Vargas Area*(with color highlighting for differences of 30+: growth in yellow, reduction in orange, and brown for a mix of both)

"Actual" Resident and Enrollment part (same Projected Resident Student Population part

Projected Resident ProjectedActual Oct. 4, 2018 (excl. TK)* Oct. Students (excl. TK)

Resident Attending AttendingStudents Adjust** Enrollment

data as no current students in shifted area)



That last part of a bubble that was in the upper elementary grades in the south is now in the middle school grades for Kennedy and Miller, with corresponding ongoing negative impacts as large classes graduate from eighth in the next few years. Kennedy’s region is forecast to have 82 fewer middle school students next year and a cumulative decline by 299 in five years, when the total falls to 936. Miller’s area has a relatively small drop by 28 forecast for 2019, but loses 272 to 2023. The projected result in that year for Miller is only 773 resident (6-8) students. The projected five-year differences are much less in the other three secondary regions, with resultant totals that are higher. While the Lawson and Hyde regions have larger reductions than Miller for next year, with 38 and 55 fewer students, the smaller five-year differences, including a nominal net gain for Lawson, keep their totals above 1,000. And Cupertino’s region, with a projected gain of 25 in 2019 and a net drop by 94 in five years, maintains a total above 1,300, which is far greater than the totals of the other middle schools but does stay within that school’s capacity. Underlying Factors to the Projections: Comparing the Total Enrollment Changes Since 1993 The total CUSD enrollment rose dramatically from 1993 to 2013 and then abruptly went into a rapidly accelerating decline, as can be seen in Chart 1 below. The highest total of 19,184 (in student files provided to EPC), in 2013, was over a 5,500-student increase, or by more than 40%, from two decades earlier. The loss in the following two years was by a total of 260 students. The reductions since then jumped to 339 in 2016, 584 in 2017 and 648 in 2018. The total drop since that 2013 peak was by 1,831 students, or nearly 10%. This shift to decline, which is projected to continue for the next four years, occurred mainly due to a combination of (1) relatively large graduating eighth grade classes, (2) lower incoming kindergarten enrollments and (3) reduced net retention of students as classes graduated through the grades. We discuss these and other factors in the following sections.

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

17,000

18,000

19,000

20,000

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Tota

l TK

-8 E

nrol

lmen

t

Early October of

Chart 1: Actual and Projected Total October TK-8 Enrollments, 1993 to 2023

Actual

Projected



110,000

115,000

120,000

125,000

130,000

135,000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Tota

l TK-

5 En

rollm

ent

Early October of

Chart 2: Actual Totals of Kindergarten (including TK) through Fifth Grade Students in Santa Clara County Public Schools

22,000

23,000

24,000

25,000

26,000

27,000

28,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Tota

l Num

ber

of L

ive

Bir

ths

Calendar Year

Chart 3: Total Annual Births to Mothers Residing in Santa Clara County, 2006 to 2016

Applicable to Recent Kindergartens

Applicable to Current and Future Kindergartens

1,500

1,550

1,600

1,650

1,700

1,750

1,800

1,850

1,900

1,950

2,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Tota

l Num

ber

of L

ive

Bir

ths

Calendar Year

Chart 4: Annual Births to Mothers Residing in Four Main Zip Codes Relevant to CUSD, 2004 to 2016

Applicable to Recent Kindergartens

Applicable to Current and Future Kindergartens



Total TK-5 Enrollment and Birth Trends in Santa Clara County This shift from enrollment growth to decline occurred in around 2013 in most South Bay school districts, with the differences being greatest in the TK-5 totals. Many districts had the same “bubble” as in the CUSD for larger single-grade classes graduating out of the elementary level in recent years. That “bubble” correlated to the higher birth totals that occurred before the start of the last recession in 2008. Since then, birth counts have plummeted in most locations and, unlike in past economic recoveries, did not rebound as the local economy soared after 2012.6 The huge recent jump in housing costs, including rents, appears to have been a more-than-offsetting factor for families choosing to have either children or more children while living locally. The resultant lower birth numbers and the corresponding declining TK-5 totals in Santa Clara County are shown on Charts 2 and 3 on the previous page.7 Local Birth Trends Since 2006 The CUSD, despite having some of the most acclaimed schools in California, nonetheless has similar patterns occurring to those for the county as a whole. Along with the sudden shift from total enrollment growth to total enrollment decline in 2013, as is shown in Chart 1 on page 8, the combined births in the four most relevant local zip codes have fallen significantly since 2007, as is shown in Chart 4 on page 9. The birth total from the combined 95014, 94087, 95129 and 94024 zip codes went from being above 1,800 before 2008 to significantly below 1,600 in the latest two years of available data (2015 and 2016). That is more than a 10% reduction. Even the total that mostly correlates to the current kindergartners, which is the births in 2013, is more than 3% higher than the births mainly of relevance to the 2020 and 2021 kindergartners. We discuss this births-to-kindergartners data in more detail in a later section, but the point here is that the CUSD’s situation is occurring in most districts in the South Bay, with the only notable exceptions being locations that added thousands of housing units recently. Underlying Factors to the Projections: Recent Student Population Shifts by Middle School Region This shift to total enrollment decline in the CUSD has not occurred equally or proportionately between district regions. Some sections have had falling student numbers for over a decade, while others continued to have growth to 2015 or 2016 and only then shifted into declining totals. The easiest way to summarize these general locational differences, as we have done in the past, is by the TK-8 totals in the five middle school attendance areas. That total peaked in the Kennedy (southwest CUSD) region in 2007 (see Table 3 on page 11). The Miller (southeast) region was near its high point from 2004 through 2013. The Lawson (central) area had the most students in 2012. These three attendance regions all had significant declines in their TK-8 totals since 2013. The Hyde (east) and Cupertino (north) regions, by contrast, continued adding students from 2013 to 2015 or 2016. What all of these regions have in common, however, is to have had reductions since 2016 in their CUSD-enrolled TK-8 totals. The Kennedy region lost an average of 26 students annually from 2010 to 2013 and a more significant average of 120 yearly from 2013 to 2016. The average annual drop over the last two years, however, was by a huge 205 students. The Miller region averaged a reduction by only six students annually from 2010 to 2013 and a more consequential 107 students from 2013 to 2016. That average pace eased only slightly in the last two years, at 83 fewer annually. Lawson’s area gained an average of 78 students in each year from 2010 to 2013, but that shifted to an average decline by 74 from 2013 to 2016, with the average loss since then being by 104 students. Even the Hyde and Cupertino areas had changes from strong growth, with each averaging over 100 students annually from 2010 to 2013, to much smaller average net gains from 2013 to 2016, and then to notable declines over the last two years. These last two areas include some of the relatively more affordable dwellings, but the latest housing cost increases have caused even those regions to now have declining totals. 6 The exception of a modest rise in births in 2012 is related to the Year of the Dragon in the Chinese astrological calendar,

which some believe is the optimal time to have children. 7 The shift to greater enrollment decline, especially in 2018, in many South Bay and San Francisco Peninsula districts, including

some other highly acclaimed districts, is shown in Appendix B1. All but one of those 14 districts had a total reduction in 2018.



Trends in Existing CUSD Housing by Category Readers already familiar with how to interpret the existing housing data can proceed to the “Key Findings Related to the Data in Table 4” subsection on page 14. All of the trend findings in “existing housing” have been recalculated for this study, including by several value classifications of single-family-detached residences (“SFD”) and attached units (“ATT”, covering apartments, condos, townhouses and plexes). There is also a residual grouping for students in areas with a thorough mix of SFD and ATT types. Key information on the main housing trends is summarized in Table 4, with additional figures provided in Appendix B2. Understanding the Data in Table 4 Table 4, on pages 12 and 13, contains resident totals of district-enrolled students in 2012 and from 2015 through 2018 in areas with virtually no dwellings added since 2010 (i.e., what we are calling “existing housing”). The counts are shown in groups of three grades each (K-2, 3-5 and 6-8, as well as TK-8) so that we can easily show both (1) how the populations have changed as the students graduated upward by three grades over three years

Enrollment FallSubject of Cupertino Lawson Hyde Kennedy Miller

Actual 2001 3,696 2,343 2,768 3,715 2,893Actual 2002 3,705 2,400 2,688 3,835 3,006Actual 2003 3,756 2,513 2,580 3,834 3,099Actual 2004 3,834 2,532 2,587 3,888 3,154Actual 2005 3,830 2,723 2,628 3,937 3,146Actual 2006 3,972 2,901 2,654 3,990 3,156



Net AverageAnnual Difference: 2010 to 2013 109 78 110 -26 -6 2013 to 2016 23 -74 67 -120 -107 2016 to 2018 -156 -104 -94 -205 -83

Change to 2018 from High -384 -440 -188 -945 -561

* Effective assignments have all of the Collins region attending Lawson and all of the Lincoln region attending Kennedy in every year shown. Attendance area figures exclude incoming inter-district students and those listed at residentially unlocatable addresses such as PO boxes. The highest recent student total for each school region is highlighted in gray.

Table 3: Recent CUSD-Enrolled Student Changes for the Effective Current Middle School Attendance Areas*

Total CUSD-Enrolled Resident TK-8 Students by Effective Middle School Region*



Percent Oct. Change

Type** Category*** Subject**** of K-2 3-5 6-8 TK-8 in TK-8

SFD Gentrifying Areas Resident Total 2012 352 369 420 1,150that were originally 2015 323 396 394 1,126Affordable or Modest 2016 341 386 394 1,135

2017 326 369 384 1,0992018 317 340 401 1,068

3-Year Change Within Group -6 -58 -5%3-Year Change from Prior Group 17 56-Year Change Within Group -35 -82 -7%

Originally Resident Total 2012 358 381 320 1,062Moderate Income 2015 263 370 393 1,049

2016 273 338 380 1,0052017 291 295 389 9832018 282 269 345 909

3-Year Change Within Group 19 -140 -13%3-Year Change from Prior Group 6 -256-Year Change Within Group -76 -153 -14%

Originally Resident Total 2012 1,766 2,215 2,324 6,320Middle Income 2015 1,540 1,961 2,291 5,856

2016 1,405 1,870 2,253 5,5812017 1,377 1,750 2,076 5,2532018 1,307 1,710 1,993 5,071

3-Year Change Within Group -233 -785 -13%3-Year Change from Prior Group 170 326-Year Change Within Group -459 -1,249 -20%

Upper Middle to Resident Total 2012 738 940 963 2,645Highest Income 2015 626 858 946 2,464

2016 588 794 960 2,3672017 557 737 920 2,2382018 543 714 840 2,133

3-Year Change Within Group -83 -331 -13%3-Year Change from Prior Group 88 -186-Year Change Within Group -195 -512 -19%

All Existing SFD Resident Total 2012 3,214 3,905 4,027 11,1772015 2,752 3,585 4,024 10,4952016 2,607 3,388 3,987 10,0882017 2,551 3,151 3,769 9,5732018 2,449 3,033 3,579 9,181

3-Year Change Within Group -303 -1,314 -13%3-Year Change from Prior Group 281 -66-Year Change Within Group -765 -1,996 -18%

Table 4, Page 1 of 2, with footnotes at the bottom of the final page

by Grade Group

Table 4: Summary of Student Population Trends from Existing Housing*

Existing DwellingsClassification of Resident Students



Percent Oct. Change

Type** Category*** Subject**** of K-2 3-5 6-8 TK-8 in TK-8

ATT Most Affordable Resident Total 2012 340 345 339 1,0292015 354 341 341 1,0662016 344 350 328 1,0542017 370 349 323 1,0602018 357 333 347 1,057

3-Year Change Within Group 3 -9 -1%3-Year Change from Prior Group -21 66-Year Change Within Group 17 28 3%

Relatively Affordable Resident Total 2012 1,334 1,175 812 3,334to Modest 2015 1,326 1,259 1,003 3,671

2016 1,368 1,226 1,045 3,7232017 1,454 1,182 999 3,7072018 1,396 1,167 950 3,596

3-Year Change Within Group 70 -75 -2%3-Year Change from Prior Group -159 -3096-Year Change Within Group 62 262 8%

Moderate through Resident Total 2012 1,085 1,118 862 3,078High Amenity 2015 1,050 1,053 1,054 3,206

2016 1,036 1,053 1,072 3,2102017 995 1,077 1,010 3,1272018 937 1,037 931 2,952

3-Year Change Within Group -113 -254 -8%3-Year Change from Prior Group -13 -1226-Year Change Within Group -148 -126 -4%

All Existing ATT Resident Total 2012 2,759 2,638 2,013 7,4412015 2,730 2,653 2,398 7,9432016 2,748 2,629 2,445 7,9872017 2,819 2,608 2,332 7,8942018 2,690 2,537 2,228 7,605

3-Year Change Within Group -40 -338 -4%3-Year Change from Prior Group -193 -4256-Year Change Within Group -69 164 2%

* These are aggregate figures from planning areas with virtually no net increase in housing units since Sept. 2010. The exceptions are "Affordable and Modest" ATT and "All Existing ATT", where one included apartment complex ("Markham") added 50 units but the student population was stable. (The new section of the "Biltmore" is excluded from this data.)

** "SFD" = Single Family Detached homes; "ATT" = Attached, for apartment, condo, townhouse & traditional plex units

*** Categories are subjective assignments by EPC of the dominant housing situation in each planning area.

**** Changes are over three years for groupings of three grades, with K-2 compared to the prior K-2, 3-5 to the prior K-2, 6-8 to the prior 3-5, and TK-8 to the prior TK-8.

Existing Dwellings by Grade Group

Table 4, Page 2 of 2

Classification of Resident Students

Table 4: Summary of Student Population Trends from Existing Housing*



and (2) the general age distribution of the students. The “Gentrifying Areas that were originally Affordable or Modest” SFD homes, for instance, had 323 students in K-2 in 2015 and now have 340 in 3-5, for a net gain of 17 students in that population as it graduated forward by three grades. This is what the “17” in the “3-Year Change from Prior Group” refers to. We also show how the K-2 group has changed during that time, which was a decline by six in falling (in net) from 323 to 317. That shift in K-2 is boxed because it is an important indication of whether the students’ parents are getting older, with lower kindergarten numbers likely, or are instead becoming younger (through turnover), thereby generating potential kindergarten growth. The value classifications shown in Table 4 come from a standardized but nonetheless subjective EPC evaluation of the dominant housing situation in each EPC-created planning area. The relative income levels are interpolated from the approximate relative dwelling values. Areas with consequential amounts of additional residential units are excluded from these “existing housing” figures. Key Findings Related to the Data in Table 4 While the student reductions continue to be greater on a three-year basis in the more expensive SFD categories, the biggest shift in the last year was the decline from existing ATT units in all but the “Most Affordable” group. Both the “Relatively Affordable to Modest” and “Moderate through High Amenity” ATT categories reached recent TK-8 highs in 2016 and then had some losses in 2017, but that was followed by much larger reductions this year. The “Relatively Affordable to Modest” classification gained a net of 70 in K-2 since 2015, but that figure comes from a rise by 128 from 2015 to 2017 and then a reduction by 58 (in falling from 1,454 to 1,396, or by 4%) in 2018. This ATT group also added a net of 36 in TK-8 from 2015 to 2017, but lost 111 (3%) this year. And although some decline already had occurred from 2016 to 2017 in both K-2 and TK-8 in the “Moderate through High Amenity” ATT group, the reductions are much larger in 2018. The K-2 total is down by 58 (6%) and the TK-8 count by 175 (6%) in just the last year. The previous data gave us no indication that such major ATT student declines were about to occur, so this was not included in the last forecast update. There instead, at least until 2016, had been indications of more families with school age children moving into such units as a way, when they no longer could afford the SFD homes, to still get into the CUSD. It was mainly in these units that, in aggregate, our forecast from last year of the current enrollment was too high. Whereas that projection was only high by 29 students out of over 9,000 coming from existing SFD homes, it was too high by a significant 166 students, out of over 7,600 students, in the existing ATT units. Deciding on how much weight that this shift should be given is an issue in the forecast. We are reluctant to run a projection on just one or two years of enrollment “advancement” changes and kindergarten differences. Three- or four-year averages, sometimes with weighting for what occurred in the last year, are more appropriate to use. In addition, for apartments in particular, we have found in the past that large student gains or losses in any one year often are partly reversed, rather than continuing, in the next year. But there is a concern, in the current extremely high rent situation, that this could be the start of an ongoing student trend in local ATT units. What did not change markedly in the last year was the severe student decline in most of the existing SFD homes. Three of the four general income-level categories of such homes (with relative income-levels interpreted from the general housing situations in each location) had 13% net student reductions since 2015. They also had larger percentage declines in net over the last six years. The “Originally Middle Income” SFD group contains the majority of the students coming from detached dwellings, with over 5,000, and those lost 785 in TK-8, or 13%, since 2015 and 1,249, or 20%, since 2012. The “Upper Middle to Highest Income” SFD, which has the second largest student total from detached homes, with over 2,000, had similar percentage declines, with losses of 331 in TK-8, or 13%, in the last three years and 512, or 20%, since 2012. Both of these categories had ongoing notable declines in K-2 as well. What is key in this update is that in the last year these K-2 and TK-8 totals again fell by large amounts. Only the two relatively less expensive (but still high priced) SFD groups, while having continued decline in TK-8, had minimal net K-2 changes since 2015, but even the latter totals are down in the last year.



Advancement Rates from Existing Housing Grade-to-grade advancement rates are calculations of the net change in the number of students in each grade as they graduate into the next grade in the following school year. These figures, which are sometimes called cohort survival rates, are most applicable to an accurate forecast when they are determined specifically for students from existing dwellings. For example, if there had been a total of 100 students in kindergarten last year and 105 in first grade this year from the same group of homes, that would be a +5% (1.05) net advancement rate gain. Such rates usually are averaged over the last several years within each single-grade advancement to avoid giving too much influence to nuances that may have occurred in any one year. For this study, we determined the averages over both the last three and four years, with the final year of change weighted by 150% in the four-year averages. The recent student counts by grade and resultant calculated single-grade rates are provided in Appendix B2 for each major housing category. The cumulative impacts of the three-year average rates are discussed below, in relation to the figures shown in Table 5 on page 16. These rates are a different way to evaluate the existing housing trends described in the previous section. There is one key difference, however, which is that the student totals also change due to the class sizes of the incoming kindergarten students and outgoing eighth graders; those do not factor into advancement rates. Understanding the Data in Table 5 and the related Appendix B2 Cumulative rates shown in the Table 5 sub-column titled “Oct. 2015 to Oct. 2018” are the result of a compounding of the latest individual grade-to-grade advancement rates from first to eighth. This identifies the change, from the same housing units, in each student body class as it graduated upward through the grades.8 Using the “SFD: Originally Affordable or Modest” category in the table as an example, the “1.09” means that 100 students in first grade in one year would become 109 students seven years later in eighth grade (i.e., a net 9% increase) if these rates continue to occur. When the cumulative figure is below 1.00, such as the “0.60” for “ATT: Affordable and Modest”, that means there is a theoretical decline (in this case, by 40%). These cumulative rates are a good indication of the net effect that housing turnover (i.e., families moving in and out) is having on the enrollment. Key Findings Related to the Data in Table 5 Despite the declining overall and incoming kindergarten numbers in the three SFD categories with the most students, each of these groupings has continued to have exceptionally high cumulative rates. All three of these categories also have slightly higher rates in the latest three-year period than in the immediately prior, partly overlapping period. And the only one of these three categories that has a lower latest rate than in the earlier periods is the “Originally Affordable or Modest” group, but those past rates are too far above our “normal range” findings in other districts to be sustainable. The latest 1.09 figure from these homes is still at the very top of that normal range. The significant student losses in these categories thus are not coming from rate changes, but instead are due to aging student populations, with declining incoming kindergarten totals. The more consequential rate changes, as would be expected based on the findings we already have discussed in this report, occurred in the two existing ATT categories with the most students. The rate from the “Affordable and Modest” ATT group fell by seven points, from 0.67 to 0.60, in the latest period compared to the 2014-to-2017 period. That latest 0.60 figure also is down by 16 points, or 20%, from the 0.76 rate in the earliest period shown, for which there is no overlap, and has gone far below the normal range. In this case, however, with large rent increases probably being the source of many students no longer being able to stay in these apartments, the rate could remain far below that range.

8 We exclude the rate entering first grade from this cumulative calculation because that is impacted by students coming from

private kindergarten programs. That factor, while important, is a separate issue from identifying the changes occurring in existing housing through turnover, which is the main reason for identifying these cumulative rates.



Comparison of Local Birth Counts to Corresponding Kindergarten Populations Estimating the kindergarten populations in specific future years can be the most subjective task. Unlike in any other grade, there are few existing students (only partially from TK) to base the calculations on. While identifying the trends in each location can lead to “good” kindergarten projections on average over several years, there may be single-year fluctuations that have little to do with multiple-year trends. We therefore review local birth data to find any unusual counts that might impact the corresponding (five years later) kindergartens. We have found the most suitable source for such data, for correlation to kindergarten, is birth totals by zip code that are gathered by county health departments and then conveyed to the State. Keep in mind, however, that these figures have a five-year gap in relation to the resultant kindergartens and any housing turnover during the interim, along with factors such as varying levels of parents choosing private schools, will alter the correlative ratio. In addition, most of the CUSD zip codes are partly in other districts, so extrapolating the birth figures relevant to the CUSD is also less than exact. With these caveats in mind, Table 6 on page 17 shows the combined birth totals in the four zip codes that are significantly inside the district, along with the CUSD-enrolled kindergartners from that same combined area five years later.

2015 to 2014 to 2013 to 2012 to NormalCategory of Existing Residences** 2018 2017 2016 2015 Range

SFD: Originally Affordable or Modest 1,068 1.09 1.07 1.25 1.21 0.75 - 1.10

SFD: Originally Moderate Income 909 0.94 1.03 1.01 1.08 0.80 - 1.15

SFD: Originally Middle Income 5,071 1.16 1.14 1.16 1.15 0.85 - 1.25

SFD: Upper Middle to High Income 2,133 1.18 1.16 1.14 1.15 0.90 - 1.30

ATT: Most Affordable 1,057 0.93 0.86 0.97 1.10 0.70 - 1.05

ATT: Affordable and Modest 3,596 0.60 0.67 0.74 0.76 0.75 - 1.10

ATT: Moderate through High Amenity 2,952 0.81 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.75 - 1.10

* These "existing housing" figures are from aggregate counts of planning areas with virtually no net increase in dwelling units since September 2010.

** "SFD" covers single family detached homes and "ATT" is for attached units, including apartments, condos, townhouses and plexes; Categories are subjective assignments by EPC of the dominant student-generating residences in each area.

*** Cumulative rates are the cumulative impact from first to eighth grades of the individual grade-to-grade net advancement (a.k.a., cohort survival) rates averaged over several recent years. For example, "ATT: Affordable and Modest" units, in aggregate, have averaged net population losses in the number of students in the graduation from most grades into the next. The latest cumulative impact of those rates is 0.60. This means that, if these rates continue, there eventually would be 40% fewer eighth graders from these same housing units as there had been first graders seven years earlier. The rate of change between kindergarten and first grade is excluded from these cumulative rates because that is often impacted by students coming out of private kindergarten programs. While those private kindergarten programs are an important forecast component, that is a separate issue from evaluating the impact of housing turnover, which is the main purpose of these cumulative rates. The "Normal Range" is the recent vicinity that over 80% of our clients are in for the categories listed. A few districts have figures well outside these ranges.

Note: See Appendix B2 for additional information.

Students

Current

Table 5: Summary of Recent Cumulative Advancement Rates by Category of Existing Housing*

CUSDCumulative Average Advancement Rates in Fall from***



Understanding the Data in Table 5 Two types of data are of importance in this table: (1) how the birth totals have changed and (2) how consistent the ratio between births and resident kindergarten-age students has been. The first row of Table 6, for instance, shows that 1,831 births in “2006” (prorated for eleven-twelfths of the 2006 births and one-twelfth, for December, of the 2005 births, to match the corresponding kindergarten-eligibility period) translated into 1,760 resident students, from these four zip codes, in 2011. That is 96% of the births from those areas.9 Our focus, however, is on how the birth counts have changed, especially in relation to the next three resident kindergarten totals, and on how the ratio has evolved for the last four kindergartens (including current). Since that ratio continuously declined from a high of 97% for the 2015 kindergartners to 95%, 94% and just 91% in each subsequent year, there clearly is a downward trend occurring. The 94% average is thus probably the maximum ratio that could occur in the pending kindergarten totals, with closer to the latest 91% ratio being more likely. 9 This figure is so close to 100%, despite large portions of three of these zip codes being in other districts, because many more

families have been moving into the district than moving out of the CUSD in the five years after some of their children were born. Whether the degree of this trend can continue in the current high-housing-cost situation is debatable.

Table 6: Comparison of Births in Four Main Zip Codes to Corresponding CUSD Kindergarten Populations*

Total Births inZip Code Areas CUSD-Enrolled Ratio of94024, 94087, Resident CUSD Students

Birth Year and Student Enrollment Date** 95014 & 95129 Students to Births

"2006" Births and Oct. 2011 Kindergartners 1,831 1,760 96%"2007" Births and Oct. 2012 Kindergartners and 100% of TK 1,938 1,735 90%"2008" Births and Oct. 2013 Kindergartners and 50% of TK 1,818 1,727 95%"2009" Births and Oct. 2014 Kindergartners and 33% of TK 1,691 1,576 93%

"2010" Births and Oct. 2015 Kindergartners 1,678 1,629 97%"2011" Births and Oct. 2016 Kindergartners 1,644 1,566 95%"2012" Births and Oct. 2017 Kindergartners 1,678 1,571 94%"2013" Births and Oct. 2018 Kindergartners (Current Ratio) 1,648 1,494 91%

Average Ratio for Four Latest School Years (poor correlation with 6% range in large numbers) 94%

note how much lower births are

in two latestyears below

than in all prior at Four-Year at Currentyears shown Average Ratio Ratio

"2014" Births and Potential Oct. 2019 Kindergartners 1,640 1,545 1,487"2015" Births and Potential Oct. 2020 Kindergartners 1,564 1,473 1,418"2016" Births and Potential Oct. 2021 Kindergartners 1,552 1,461 1,407

* These are the kindergarten students each year with home addresses in the CUSD sections of the relevant zip code areas.

** These are proportionate birth amounts in the listed year and the prior year so as to properly correlate to the kindergarten eligibility period shown, such as "2006" births representing one-twelfth of the birth total in 2005 and eleventh-twelfths (all but December) of the birth total in 2006. The ratios shift after the 2006 births to match the evolution of the kindergarten eligibilty birthdate cutoff from December 2 before 2012 to September 1 starting in 2014, but with one month of the TK eligibility period added to the October 2012 through 2014 birth ranges to create 12-month correlative birth periods.

Note: These figures are not the sole factor in the kindergarten projections. Student trends by location, new housing andsocioeconomic issues are also key factors, with revisions made to those findings where warranted based on the above data.

Birth Data Sources: California Dept. of Health Statistics (before 2013) and Santa Clara County Health Dept. (after 2012)

Potential Resident CUSD-EnrolledKindergartners in These Zip Codes



Key Findings Related to the Data in Table 5 While we are concerned about giving these birth-and-kindergarten findings too much influence in the projections, the low latest birth totals also cannot be ignored. The combined birth totals in these zip codes were above 1,800 in “2006” through “2008”, but fell into the 1,600s from “2009” to “2014”, with the latter years correlating to the four latest kindergartens and the 2019 kindergarten. The birth totals correlating to the following two kindergartens, however, are only in the mid 1,500s. The average in those two latest available birth years (1,558) is thus not only down by 16% from the average from the three earliest years shown (1,862), but is also 5% lower than the total corresponding to the current kindergarten. So the district has the combination of falling birth totals and declining correlative ratios to apply to those lower birth totals, which is a concern. The only positive note is that student gains from new housing could offset some of those negative trends. This recent decline in births is happening in many zip codes in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, including by over 20% in some cases. Only a few locations in that large region (mainly those with huge new housing totals) have recent birth totals as high as what occurred before 2009 (before the start of the last recession). Many kindergarten totals, after adjusting for the cutoff date shift, are down significantly since 2012 as a result. Projected Impacts of New Housing New dwellings impact the enrollment through a combination of (1) the number of residences expected in the various housing types, by year and location, and (2) the projected number of students in each of those units. These two components are discussed in the following italicized subsections. Average Student Generation Rates (SGRs) from Recently Built Housing Student generation rates are the average rates at which residences “yield” students, such as one student in every two homes (a 0.50 SGR). Public school SGRs usually are calculated by identifying the number of district-enrolled students in a suitable sample of residential units from the local area. The SGRs identified from recently built housing are often considered the best estimation of what similar future homes will generate, at least in the first few years of occupation. Three such SGR categories were determined necessary for the updated projections. These categories, each of which include only developments that had no occupied units prior to 2014, are: (1) “SFD and SFA” - tracts of mostly market-rate, single-family-detached (SFD) and comparable attached

(SFA) homes (i.e., large plex units with attached two-car garages for each unit and private outside areas) (2) “BMR Non-SRO” – attached complexes with at least 50% of the units originally offered at below-market

rates (i.e., affordable to occupants with annual incomes below a certain level, such as 80% of the median income); this excludes motel-like “SRO” (single room occupancy) BMR projects

(3) “Regular ATT” – apartment, condo and non-SFA townhouse developments with a majority of market-rate

units, but which often include small percentages of BMR units The small sample of 54 new SFD and SFA homes in the CUSD currently provides 21 district-enrolled students, as is shown in Table 7 on page 19. That is a TK-8 SGR of 0.39, or the rounded equivalent of 39 students in every 100 new residences in this category. Normally we avoid using such a limited sample to apply to projected units, but with fewer than 100 forecast, this is an adequate SGR determination. Only three Regular ATT developments have completed sections in the last four years and these have significantly different underlying SGRs. The “Main Street Cupertino Lofts” are entirely one-bedroom apartments that only currently provide three CUSD students in 120 units, for a rounded 0.03 SGR. The 204 entirely multiple-bedroom units in the “19800 Apartments”, by contrast, have 70 CUSD students, for a 0.34 SGR. The 80 mostly multiple-bedroom units in the new part of the “Biltmore Apartments” have 25 students and a 0.28 SGR. The combination



of these three locations thus has 98 students in 404 units, for a 0.24 SGR that is significantly different from that in any of the three underlying sources. This 0.24 figure is still, however, far above what we are calculating from new Regular ATT developments, on average, in other South Bay districts. With the largest pending developments expected to have close to 50% studio and one-bedroom units, this 0.24 SGR should be a good estimation of what will come from those locations, on average. The only recent BMR Non-SRO development in the vicinity is in the Sunnyvale ESD, with a 0.33 SGR in 60 units. This is a very limited sample size that is coming from a single location outside the CUSD, but it nonetheless should be adequate to apply to the small total number of units in projected BMR developments. Projected New Housing There are only seven future developments of more than 50 units that are expected to have occupancies by 2023. The largest of these is on the Vallco site that straddles Wolfe Road on the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd. Since everyone who has paid any attention to the local news in Cupertino knows, that location has two identified possibilities for residential development. These are occurring because Cupertino has not achieved the State-mandated new housing levels in recent years and a recently passed bill (SB35) requires cities in such situations to approve new housing plans that (1) will provide a high ratio of BMR units and (2) meet city general plan requirements. The proposal submitted by the Vallco owner meets those requirements, with 2,402 ATT units, of which 50% will be BMR, but the latter are currently proposed to be only studio and one-bedroom units. The City of Cupertino has offered a different option with more units in return for some additional community benefits being provided by that property owner, but litigation by a local citizens’ group is contesting this proposal. With possible lengthy legal delays as a result, our opinion is that the owner’s proposal, which would be harder to successfully challenge in court, is what will occur. The owner’s proposal has 1,568 units on the west side of Wolfe Road in the current Collins elementary area and 833 on the east side in the current Eisenhower region, but with both sides in the Lawson middle school area. The first phases are expected in the western portion and we believe that is the only section, in such a large project, which is likely to have occupancies in the next five years. The projections have 522 or 523 units being moved into in each of 2021, 2022 and 2023, to residential build-out on the west side, but even in the “hot” current housing market, this may be an overly optimistic timeline. With 50% of the units slated to be studios and one-bedrooms, we feel the project as a whole is appropriate to apply the Regular ATT SGR to, despite those units being BMR.

Housing Type TK-8(Developments of) TK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SGR

CUSD Locations of Recent Mainly Market-Rate:

SFD and SFA 54 0 4 2 4 2 0 5 1 2 1 21 0.39

Regular ATT 404 4 15 12 11 16 8 12 9 6 5 98 0.24

Nearest Location (in SSD) of Recent Mainly BMR Non-SRO ATT:

BMR Non-SRO 60 1 3 4 3 1 2 2 0 2 2 20 0.33

* These figures are from developments of three or more units (for the sake of student home address privacy) with none of the units occupied before 2014.

in TK-8Current District-Enrolled Students by Grade Total

Table 7: Average Student Generation Rates (SGRs) in Recently Built Housing*

SampledUnits



The other six major developments forecast for occupancies in the next five years include (1) the 500 “FortBay” apartments on Stevens Creek Blvd. in the current Eisenhower (potentially De Vargas) area (forecast in 2020 and 2021) and (2) 39 SFA townhouses and 99 Regular ATT units at the “Butcher’s Corner” site in the northeast corner of the Stocklmeir area (also forecast in 2020 and 2021). Expected to have move-ins in 2022 and 2023 are (1) 140 units by the Fremont Avenue and Sunnyvale Saratoga Road intersection (replacing a shopping center in the Stocklmeir area), (2) 270 units in the Oaks Center in the Garden Gate region, (3) 187 units replacing the Marina Foods shopping center in the Garden Gate area, and (4) 80 apartments on the east side of De Anza Blvd. just north of Highway 85 in the Meyerholz region. All of these four later developments are projected to have the Regular ATT SGR. We also have projected a total of 50 units in two BMR developments for which the locations are our conjecture, but for which the most suitable sites appear to exist in the Garden Gate and Meyerholz areas. We should note two situations that are not relevant to this forecast. Redevelopment of the Hampton Apartments complex, on the northeast side of the Wolfe Road and Interstate 280 interchange, could occur within five years but that is the sole residential City of Cupertino address that is not in the CUSD; it instead is in the Santa Clara USD. The other situation is the City of San Jose’s Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan. Aside from the “Fort Bay” apartments, none of the other sites identified for residential or mixed-use redevelopment in the CUSD portion of that plan are realistic to occur within five years. The result, including some much smaller developments that we have not discussed, is a projected total of 3,000 new units being occupied in the next five years (see Table 8 above). These are forecast to provide 765 students in 2023, as is shown in the lowest data row of Table 1 on page 4.10 Concluding Commentary Forecasts have to be based, with some plus or minus leeway, on what has actually occurred in the recent student trends and data findings. We make decisions on whether to use individual grade-to-grade advancement rates from the latest three- or four-year averages and whether there should be any weighting for the changes in the latest year. We decide on different degrees that the latest birth trends and births-to-corresponding-kindergarten-ratios should factor into the projected kindergarten totals. Judgment calls are made on the timing and amounts of 10 Appreciation for their insights on housing timing and amounts is due to representatives of the following city planning

departments: Andrew Miner, George Schroeder and Amber Blizinski in Sunnyvale, Piu Ghosh in Cupertino and Jared Hart in San Jose. All final decisions on possibilities and unit numbers and timing, however, were made by this demographer. Please note that these new housing projections exclude units restricted to seniors, “granny” units and housing replacement locations that are unlikely to result in a net student gain, such as the removing of 11 old apartments and building 14 TH by Fremont HS.

Housing Type(Developments of) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

SFD and Large SFA 7 22 24 19 18 90

Regular ATT 0 265 871 862 862 2,860

Non-SRO BMR ATT 0 0 10 20 20 50

All 7 287 905 901 900 3,000

* These figures are from site-specific projections based on EPC fieldwork and information from the relevant city planning departments. Totals are for "first occupancy" dates rather than permit dates. Units restricted to seniors are excluded.

Five-Year TotalProjected Additional Units in Twelve Months to Oct. 1 of*

Table 8: Summary of Projected New Housing Units



new housing and for the SGRs that are calculated and then applied to the projected housing. Sometimes we see something starting to happen that we have observed before in similar situations in nearby districts and we can factor that knowledge into a forecast. After having done this for over 70 districts in more than 350 studies in the last 30+ years, I believe I have a better understanding and a better track record than any other enrollment demographer in California. But projecting something that is significantly contrary to what the data indicates is inappropriate, even if we have some suspicion that it could occur. We may, however, discuss that suspicion in this Concluding Commentary section. This need to observe the general data trends was the underlying issue for our recent projections. Until 2014 there was no data indication, and we did not have any suspicion, of how the total enrollment trends were going to suddenly shift from dramatic growth to decline. No one foresaw how much housing costs were going to soar in recent years and that factor, in our opinion, is now overriding everything else for the latest student trends. And while we had a suspicion after 2015 that the downward trend could accelerate, the data indicators did not support that sufficiently to include in the projections. The result is that out of the first ten forecasts that EPC provided to the CUSD, nine were within the “real potential range” of plus or minus 1%, eight studies were within 0.7% and five were within 0.3% in the first forecast year. But the two studies since then, from 2016 and 2017, were off by 1.5% and just under 1% for 2017 and 2018, respectively. The projected 2017 and 2018 totals from multiple years earlier, in our prior studies, also were too high. This is simply how significantly the latest enrollment declines have deviated from what the previous data allowed us to consider projecting. What this implies for this forecast update is that we are in a period of significant uncertainty for how the numbers will evolve, but the one given is that your total will decline. The much larger classes now in the fifth through eighth grades will graduate out over the next four years. All of the trend and birth data, in the CUSD and virtually every South Bay district, clearly shows that kindergarten enrollments will fall by either a little or a lot. New housing will not generate sufficient student numbers to offset that overall enrollment decline for the CUSD. And our current suspicion is that the pending birth numbers and corresponding long-range kindergarten totals could fall much further. Sincerely,

Thomas R. Williams, Partner in Enrollment Projection Consultants



Actual October 4, 2018, Resident Student Populations versus Attending Enrollments for Elementary Schools Actual October 4, 2018, Resident Student Populations versus Attending Enrollments for Middle Schools

Actual CUSD-Enrolled Students by GradeSchool Subject TK K 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Montclaire Actual Attendance 0 65 74 69 67 82 72 429 Resident Population 9 45 61 50 61 71 74 371

Net Difference (A-R) -9 20 13 19 6 11 -2 58

West Valley Actual Attendance 0 72 74 95 99 91 123 554 Resident Population 12 74 80 103 109 97 136 611

Net Difference (A-R) -12 -2 -6 -8 -10 -6 -13 -57

Nimitz Actual Attendance 71 91 96 105 107 73 85 628 Resident Population 24 108 119 134 135 107 113 740

Net Difference (A-R) 47 -17 -23 -29 -28 -34 -28 -112

Stocklmeir Actual Attendance 0 168 202 206 193 148 189 1,106 Resident Population 52 247 272 279 257 202 240 1,549


Stevens Creek Actual Attendance 52 76 60 81 98 101 114 582 Resident Population 16 87 75 107 115 129 135 664


Lincoln Actual Attendance 0 74 79 93 118 94 118 576 Resident Population 21 87 108 126 133 112 151 738


Garden Gate Actual Attendance 0 88 104 100 99 90 95 576 Resident Population 19 120 133 125 123 104 119 743


Collins Actual Attendance 0 92 101 132 119 121 137 702 Resident Population 15 95 119 134 116 122 124 725

Net Difference (A-R) -15 -3 -18 -2 3 -1 13 -23

Eaton Actual Attendance 0 83 83 72 94 79 86 497 Resident Population 13 102 102 89 124 103 108 641


Sedgwick Actual Attendance 0 96 94 117 95 104 111 617 Resident Population 14 147 131 154 131 133 141 851


Eisenhower* Actual Attendance 1 99 98 108 91 87 90 574 Resident Population 18 130 127 136 131 109 129 780


De Vargas* Actual Attendance 45 84 83 71 83 83 70 519 Resident Population 24 124 135 123 125 123 104 758


Appendix A1, Page 1 of 2, with footnotes at the bottom of the final page

Appendix A1

including SDC and Home Study but excluding any NPS students counted in some State reports of CUSD enrollment



Actual October 4, 2018, Resident Student Populations versus Attending Enrollments for Elementary Schools


Regnart Actual Attendance 54 51 53 65 76 67 86 452 Resident Population 15 47 53 70 76 68 78 407

Net Difference (A-R) 39 4 0 -5 0 -1 8 45

Blue Hills Actual Attendance 1 45 48 60 57 62 66 339 Resident Population 5 56 50 66 76 76 72 401


Meyerholz Actual Attendance 0 124 127 124 129 130 137 771 Resident Population 13 85 71 69 87 101 111 537

Net Difference (A-R) -13 39 56 55 42 29 26 234

Muir Actual Attendance 61 44 46 48 48 42 65 354 Resident Population 3 42 51 45 48 62 74 325

Net Difference (A-R) 58 2 -5 3 0 -20 -9 29

Dilworth Actual Attendance 1 53 62 71 74 77 96 434 Resident Population 4 45 49 57 60 68 74 357


Faria Actual Attendance 0 96 120 120 120 120 120 696 Murdock-Portal Actual Attendance 0 95 96 95 96 96 92 570 McAuliffe (TK-5) Actual Attendance 0 71 70 70 65 63 59 398 Home (TK-5) Actual Attendance 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 6

Elementary Actual Attendance 286 1,667 1,771 1,903 1,930 1,812 2,011 11,380 Schools Total Resident Population 277 1,641 1,736 1,867 1,907 1,787 1,983 11,198

Net Difference (A-R) 9 26 35 36 23 25 28 182

* As of January 1, 2009, all new move-ins into the apartments and condos between Albany Drive and I-280 are being assigned to De Vargas, despite those units officially being in the Eisenhower area. We are treating this as in De Vargas.

Notes: (1) All figures based on CUSD-provided student files; (2) Resident counts exclude Home School and NPS students;(3) Elementary total net difference includes three students at unlocatable addresses and 179 inter-district students.

Appendix A1, Page 2 of 2


Appendix A1



Actual October 4, 2018, Resident Student Populations versus Attending Enrollments for Middle Schools

Actual CUSD-Enrolled Students by Grade 6-8School Subject 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

Cupertino* Actual Attendance 466 467 425 1,358 Resident Population 563 477 564 476 501 461 1,438

Net Difference (A-R) -10 -34 -36 -80

Kennedy* Actual Attendance 392 375 432 1,199 Resident Population 339 329 375 409 370 456 1,235

Net Difference (A-R) -17 5 -24 -36

Lawson* Actual Attendance 361 377 400 1,138 Resident Population 373 336 353 358 349 358 1,065

Net Difference (A-R) 3 28 42 73

Hyde Actual Attendance 343 295 360 998 Resident Population 375 357 367 375 350 397 1,122


Miller Actual Attendance 366 409 416 1,191 Resident Population 257 288 324 320 364 361 1,045


McAuliffe (6-8) Actual Attendance 27 26 24 77 Home (6-8) Actual Attendance 4 4 4 12

Middle Schools Actual Attendance 1,959 1,953 2,061 5,973 Total Resident Population 1,907 1,787 1,983 1,938 1,934 2,033 5,905


* Students in the portion of the Collins elementary attendance area that is officially in the Cupertino middle region can opt to attend Lawson instead. As close to 100% make that choice, we are including that area in the Lawson resident numbers. Students in the portion of the Lincoln elementary attendance area that is officially in the Lawson middle region can opt to attend Kennedy instead. As close to 100% make that choice, we are including that area in the Kennedy resident numbers.

Notes: (1) All figures based on CUSD-provided student files; (2) Resident counts exclude Home School and NPS students;(3) Middle school total net difference includes no students at unlocatable addresses and 68 incoming inter-district students.

Appendix A2




Actual October 4, 2018, Resident Student Populations versus Attending Enrollments for Elementary Schools Actual October 4, 2018, Resident Student Populations versus Attending Enrollments for Middle Schools


Montclaire Actual Attendance 0 65 72 68 67 82 67 421 Resident Population 8 45 61 48 61 71 71 365

Net Difference (A-R) -8 20 11 20 6 11 -4 56

West Valley Actual Attendance 0 67 72 91 95 88 119 532 Resident Population 10 73 80 102 107 95 136 603


Nimitz Actual Attendance 71 91 96 105 107 73 85 628 Resident Population 23 105 112 131 130 101 108 710


Stocklmeir Actual Attendance 0 168 202 206 193 148 189 1,106 Resident Population 49 243 270 276 254 198 236 1,526


Stevens Creek Actual Attendance 48 72 57 78 91 97 109 552 Resident Population 16 85 74 105 110 128 133 651


Lincoln Actual Attendance 0 69 75 90 116 92 113 555 Resident Population 20 86 104 125 133 110 149 727


Garden Gate Actual Attendance 0 88 104 100 99 90 95 576 Resident Population 19 114 131 122 121 101 117 725


Collins Actual Attendance 0 92 101 132 119 121 137 702 Resident Population 13 93 116 133 116 121 122 714

Net Difference (A-R) -13 -1 -15 -1 3 0 15 -12

Eaton Actual Attendance 0 83 83 72 94 79 86 497 Resident Population 13 100 102 87 120 102 107 631


Sedgwick Actual Attendance 0 96 94 117 95 104 111 617 Resident Population 14 144 129 151 127 131 136 832


Eisenhower* Actual Attendance 0 93 95 102 89 83 86 548 Resident Population 17 127 123 135 130 105 126 763


De Vargas* Actual Attendance 45 82 82 69 80 77 69 504 Resident Population 23 116 131 117 120 120 96 723


Appendix A3(a), Page 1 of 2, with footnotes at the bottom of the final page

Appendix A3(a)

excluding SDC, Home School and NPS Students



Actual October 4, 2018, Resident Student Populations versus Attending Enrollments for Elementary Schools


Regnart Actual Attendance 47 44 49 65 72 62 82 421 Resident Population 15 44 53 70 76 68 77 403

Net Difference (A-R) 32 0 -4 -5 -4 -6 5 18

Blue Hills Actual Attendance 0 44 43 58 51 61 60 317 Resident Population 5 56 50 65 75 75 71 397


Meyerholz Actual Attendance 0 119 123 120 127 128 132 749 Resident Population 12 85 70 68 86 100 110 531


Muir Actual Attendance 61 44 46 48 48 42 65 354 Resident Population 3 40 51 44 46 61 73 318

Net Difference (A-R) 58 4 -5 4 2 -19 -8 36

Dilworth Actual Attendance 0 48 59 66 70 73 93 409 Resident Population 3 45 48 57 60 67 73 353


Faria Actual Attendance 0 96 120 120 120 120 120 696 Murdock-Portal Actual Attendance 0 95 96 95 96 96 92 570 McAuliffe (TK-5) Actual Attendance 0 71 70 70 65 63 59 398

Elementary Actual Attendance 272 1,627 1,739 1,872 1,894 1,779 1,969 11,152 Schools Total Resident Population 263 1,601 1,705 1,836 1,872 1,754 1,941 10,972

Net Difference (A-R) 9 26 34 36 22 25 28 180


Notes: (1) All figures based on CUSD-provided student files; (2) Resident counts exclude SDC, Home and NPS students;(3) Elementary total net difference includes three students at unlocatable addresses and 177 inter-district students.

Appendix A3(a), Page 2 of 2

Appendix A3(a)




Projected Elementary School Resident Student Populations and Potential Attending Enrollments in October 2019

School (colors Projected CUSD-Enrolled Students by Gradefor TK groupings) Subject TK K 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Montclaire Resident Population 8 48 48 68 49 63 72 356 Potential Net Adjustment -8 20 19 11 20 6 11 79

Potential Attendance 0 68 67 79 69 69 83 435

West Valley Resident Population 15 86 78 85 104 108 96 572 Potential Net Adjustment -15 -6 -7 -8 -11 -12 -7 -66


Nimitz Resident Population 19 112 108 109 128 123 95 694 Potential Net Adjustment 60 -14 -15 -16 -26 -23 -28 -62


Stocklmeir Resident Population 45 252 248 264 259 237 179 1,484 Potential Net Adjustment -45 -75 -76 -68 -70 -61 -50 -445

Potential Attendance 0 177 172 196 189 176 129 1,039

Stevens Creek Resident Population 15 88 90 79 106 111 128 617 Potential Net Adjustment 26 -13 -14 -17 -27 -19 -31 -95


Lincoln Resident Population 18 102 91 109 126 132 110 688 Potential Net Adjustment -18 -17 -18 -29 -35 -17 -18 -152


Garden Gate Resident Population 18 105 122 137 118 114 98 712 Potential Net Adjustment -18 -26 -27 -27 -22 -22 -11 -153


Collins Resident Population 16 102 100 118 127 112 114 689 Potential Net Adjustment -16 -1 -2 -15 -2 3 0 -33


Eaton Resident Population 14 93 107 107 87 118 101 627 Potential Net Adjustment -14 -17 -18 -19 -15 -26 -23 -132


Sedgwick Resident Population 23 133 150 132 149 123 128 838 Potential Net Adjustment -23 -48 -50 -35 -34 -32 -27 -249


Eisenhower* Resident Population 22 125 132 122 137 127 99 764 Potential Net Adjustment -22 -34 -35 -28 -33 -41 -22 -215


De Vargas* Resident Population 21 121 120 129 111 114 113 729 Potential Net Adjustment 45 -34 -35 -49 -48 -40 -42 -203


Appendix A3(b), Page 1 of 2, with footnotes at the bottom of the final page

excluding SDC, Home School and NPS Students and with TK classes at only the five current locations

Appendix A3(b)



Projected Elementary School Resident Student Populations and Potential Attending Enrollments in October 2019 Projected Middle School Resident Student Populations and Potential Attending Enrollments in October 2019

School (colors Projected CUSD-Enrolled Students by Gradefor TK groupings) Subject TK K 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Regnart Resident Population 13 55 46 58 72 77 69 390 Potential Net Adjustment 30 0 -1 -4 -5 -4 -5 11


Blue Hills Resident Population 8 53 60 54 66 75 75 391 Potential Net Adjustment -8 -11 -13 -7 -7 -24 -14 -84


Meyerholz Resident Population 13 73 94 75 69 85 100 509 Potential Net Adjustment -13 34 31 52 52 41 28 225


Muir Resident Population 7 38 46 58 47 47 63 306 Potential Net Adjustment 49 4 1 -5 4 2 -18 37


Dilworth Resident Population 5 46 51 53 60 62 68 345 Potential Net Adjustment -5 3 0 11 9 10 7 35


Faria Potential Attendance** 0 96 120 120 120 120 120 696 Murdock-Portal Potential Attendance** 0 95 95 96 95 96 96 573 McAuliffe (TK-5) Potential Attendance** 0 71 71 70 70 65 63 410

Elementary Resident Population 280 1,632 1,691 1,757 1,815 1,828 1,708 10,711 Schools Total Potential Net Adjustment 5 27 26 33 35 22 29 177

Potential Attendance 285 1,659 1,717 1,790 1,850 1,850 1,737 10,888


** 100% grade-advanced (cohort survival) basis

Notes: (1) Projected amounts contain hidden fractions, so the totals above may not sum exactly to those in other tables.(2) Potential attendance if current net adjustments continue next year, but advanced by one grade and fine-tuned asneeded to match the overall forecast. These are simply theoretical numbers that have been provided to help the districtin determining what changes to these net adjustment levels may be warranted. The actual levels that will be permittednext year will be driven by capacity constraints and other factors. These alternative forecast numbers excluding SDCand home school students are based on a simple rerunning of the all-students forecast model. Any variation inthe grade-to-grade advancement rates due to the removal of some students is not reflected in this data.

Appendix A3(b), Page 2 of 2

excluding SDC, Home School and NPS Students and with TK classes at only the five current locations

Appendix A3(b)



Actual October 4, 2018, Resident Student Populations versus Attending Enrollments for Middle Schools

Actual CUSD-Enrolled Students by Grade 6-8School Subject 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

Cupertino* Actual Attendance 461 461 422 1,344 Resident Population 553 465 552 472 495 457 1,424


Kennedy Actual Attendance 385 372 426 1,183 Resident Population 333 326 370 402 363 449 1,214

Net Difference (A-R) -17 9 -23 -31

Lawson* Actual Attendance 358 369 393 1,120 Resident Population 367 330 348 354 345 355 1,054


Hyde Actual Attendance 343 295 360 998 Resident Population 365 349 351 370 342 394 1,106


Miller Actual Attendance 360 403 413 1,176 Resident Population 254 284 320 316 363 356 1,035


McAuliffe (6-8) Actual Attendance 27 26 24 77

Middle Schools Actual Attendance 1,934 1,926 2,038 5,898 Total Resident Population 1,872 1,754 1,941 1,914 1,908 2,011 5,833



Notes: (1) All figures based on CUSD-provided student files; (2) Resident counts exclude SDC, Home and NPS students;(3) Middle school total net difference includes no students at unlocatable addresses and 65 incoming inter-district students.

Appendix A4(a)




Projected Middle School Resident Student Populations and Potential Attending Enrollments in October 2019

Projected CUSD-Enrolled Students by Grade 6-8School Subject 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

Cupertino* Resident Population 541 532 443 516 450 476 1,442 Potential Net Adjustment -10 -11 -34 -55

Potential Attendance 506 439 442 1,387

Kennedy Resident Population 319 333 326 369 404 361 1,134 Potential Net Adjustment -16 -17 9 -24


Lawson* Resident Population 338 355 319 335 347 332 1,014 Potential Net Adjustment 5 4 24 33


Hyde Resident Population 389 352 333 338 364 337 1,039 Potential Net Adjustment -26 -26 -45 -97

Potential Attendance 312 338 292 942

Miller Resident Population 228 256 287 329 317 362 1,008 Potential Net Adjustment 45 45 41 131


McAuliffe (6-8) Potential Attendance** 29 25 24 78

Middle Schools Resident Population 1,815 1,828 1,708 1,887 1,882 1,868 5,637 Total Potential Net Adjustment 27 20 19 66

Potential Attendance 1,914 1,902 1,887 5,703


** Less than 100% grade-advanced (cohort survival) basis due to McAuliffe's common reduction entering 6th, 7th and 8th

Notes: (1) Projected amounts contain hidden fractions, so the totals above may not sum exactly to those in other tables.(2) Potential attendance if current net adjustments continue next year, but advanced by one grade and fine-tuned asneeded to match the overall forecast. These are simply theoretical numbers that have been provided to help the districtin determining what changes to these net adjustment levels may be warranted. The actual levels that will be permittednext year will be driven by capacity constraints and other factors. These alternative forecast numbers excluding SDCstudents are based on a simple rerunning of the all-students forecast model. Any variation in the grade-to-gradeadvancement rates due to the removal of some students is not reflected in this data.


Appendix A4(b)



Enrollment Fall Santa MountSubject of Cupertino Sunnyvale Campbell Clara Milpitas Berryessa Pleasant

Actual 2010 18,372 6,530 7,524 10,978 6,694 8,222 2,593Actual 2011 18,645 6,649 7,659 10,982 6,773 8,059 2,604Actual 2012 19,028 6,761 7,700 11,056 6,821 7,995 2,540Actual 2013 19,184 6,849 7,636 11,238 6,987 7,933 2,453Actual 2014 19,068 6,801 7,611 11,059 7,039 7,742 2,494Actual 2015 18,924 6,641 7,584 11,079 6,988 7,453 2,445Actual 2016 18,585 6,531 7,463 11,058 6,991 7,296 2,368Actual 2017 18,001 6,565 7,304 11,066 6,952 7,101 2,333Actual 2018 17,353 6,587 7,253 10,966 6,874 6,981 2,207

Appendix B1: Comparison of Recent Total TK-8 Enrollment Changes in CUSD and Other Local EPC Client Districts*

Total Enrollments in Grades TK-8*

Net Average ActualAnnual Difference: 2010 to 2013 271 106 37 87 98 -96 -47 2013 to 2017 -296 -71 -83 -43 -9 -208 -30 2017 to 2018 -648 22 -51 -100 -78 -120 -126

Net Average ActualAnnual Percent Change: 2010 to 2013 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% -1% -2% 2013 to 2017 -2% -1% -1% 0% 0% -3% -1% 2017 to 2018 -4% 0% -1% -1% -1% -2% -5%

Enrollment Fall Menlo Las San Mateo Hills-Subject of Evergreen Oak Grove Gilroy Park Lomitas** Foster City borough

Actual 2010 13,417 11,531 7,660 2,626 1,339 10,895 1,503Actual 2011 13,347 11,501 7,643 2,710 1,362 11,195 1,521Actual 2012 13,373 11,348 7,753 2,791 1,419 11,455 1,518Actual 2013 13,159 11,166 7,784 2,898 1,384 11,706 1,519Actual 2014 12,861 10,887 7,707 2,910 1,390 11,856 1,536Actual 2015 12,287 10,610 7,616 2,940 1,382 11,977 1,490Actual 2016 11,830 10,382 7,629 2,998 1,392 11,956 1,476Actual 2017 11,384 10,309 7,458 2,969 1,342 11,835 1,408Actual 2018 10,842 9,889 7,299 2,929 1,260 11,711 1,353

Net Average ActualAnnual Difference: 2010 to 2013 -86 -122 41 91 15 270 5 2013 to 2017 -444 -214 -82 18 -11 32 -28 2017 to 2018 -542 -420 -159 -40 -82 -124 -55

Net Average ActualAnnual Percent Change: 2010 to 2013 -1% -1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 0% 2013 to 2017 -3% -2% -1% 1% -1% 0% -2% 2017 to 2018 -5% -4% -2% -1% -6% -1% -4%

* These are school districts from which EPC has obtained the necessary current and historic student files, with TK-8 totals taken from those files. Most charter school and NPS counts are excluded from these figures. Sunnyvale's 2018 total excludes 86 students who were enrolled in 2017 in the now-closed SPARK charter school; that one-time gain is not part of the trends. The highest recent total for each district is highlighted in gray. Fall 2018 figures from some districts are draft figures that may be revised.** Las Lomitas covers portions of westernmost Menlo Park, Atherton, Portola Valley (Ladera) and Woodside.



Type

**C

ateg

ory*

**

SFD

Gen

trify

ing

Are

asth

at O

rigin

ally

wer

eA

fford

able

or M

odes

t

Orig

inal

ly M

oder

ate

Inco

me

Orig

inal

ly M

iddl

e In

com

e

App

endi

x B

2, p

age

1 of

4, w

ith fo

otno

tes

at th

e bo

ttom

of t

he fi

nal p

age

App

endi

x B

2: D

etai

l for

Tab

le 4

and

Tab

le 5

on

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

Tren

ds a

nd G

rade

-to-G

rade

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

es fr

om E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

*

Cla

ssifi

catio

n of

Exi

stin

g D

wel

lings

Oct

.Su

bjec

tof

TKK

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

s20

1199

106

125

117

120

135

160

119

143

2012

912

011

711

512

311

812

813

216

212

620

1313

104

123

113

121

125

119

136

139

158

2014

1210

011

313

812

712

412

013

414

714

220

1513

104

106

113

142

131

123

115

135

144

2016

1411

311

611

212

213

612

812

712

813

920

1720

105

110

111

118

118

133

119

133

132

2018

1011

395

109

109

115

116

140

126

135

3-Ye

ar A

vera

ge A

dvan

cem

ent R

ate

1.00

1.00

1.04

0.97

0.98

1.00

1.07

1.03

Wei

ghte

d 4-

Year

Avg

. Adv

ance

men

t Rat

e***

**1.

001.

001.

030.

980.

981.

001.

061.

01

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

s20

1111

112

113

913

112

011

210

799

8620

123

105

124

129

134

132

115

110

111

9920

135

9211

112

913

014

112

411

611

411

020

1410

7687

108

133

134

143

125

122

111

2015

2385

8395

113

132

125

143

127

123

2016

1410

388

8210

010

912

911

713

612

720

178

8811

291

8610

210

713

411

514

020

1813

7691

115

9479

9699

133

113

3-Ye

ar A

vera

ge A

dvan

cem

ent R

ate

1.05

1.02

1.04

0.97

0.97

0.97

0.98

1.00

Wei

ghte

d 4-

Year

Avg

. Adv

ance

men

t Rat

e***

**1.

061.

031.

040.

970.

960.

970.

991.

00

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

s20

1152

163

966

071

375

973

180

772

875

320

1215

533

550

683

679

750

786

751

835

738

2013

3552

858

359

169

169

478

077

075

784

020

1454

434

574

606

605

715

699

791

781

769

2015

6447

046

360

761

062

672

569

980

878

420

1653

423

478

504

617

619

634

730

717

806

2017

5039

545

852

451

361

762

063

971

672

120

1861

395

422

490

540

526

644

631

641

721

3-Ye

ar A

vera

ge A

dvan

cem

ent R

ate

1.06

1.08

1.02

1.01

1.02

1.01

1.00

1.00

Wei

ghte

d 4-

Year

Avg

. Adv

ance

men

t Rat

e***

**1.

061.

081.

021.

021.

021.

011.

011.

00

App

endi

x B

2, p

age

1 of

4, w

ith fo

otno

tes

at th

e bo

ttom

of t

he fi

nal p

age

App

endi

x B

2: D

etai

l for

Tab

le 4

and

Tab

le 5

on

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

Tren

ds a

nd G

rade

-to-G

rade

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

es fr

om E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

*

Dat

a by

Gra

de

TK-8

Tot

al &

Cum

ulat

ive

Rat

e fr

om1s

t - 8

th**

**

1,12

41,

150

1,15

11,

157

1,12

61,

135

1,09

91,

068

1.09

1.06

1,02

61,

062

1,07

21,

049

1,04

91,

005

983

909

0.94

0.96

6,31

16,

320

6,26

96,

028

5,85

65,

581

5,25

35,

071

1.16

1.17

App

endi

x B

2, p

age

1 of

4, w

ith fo

otno

tes

at th

e bo

ttom

of t

he fi

nal p

age

App

endi

x B

2: D

etai

l for

Tab

le 4

and

Tab

le 5

on

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

Tren

ds a

nd G

rade

-to-G

rade

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

es fr

om E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

*



Type

**C

ateg

ory*

**

SFD

Upp

er M

iddl

e to

Hig

h In

com

e

Cla

ssifi

catio

n of

Exi

stin

g D

wel

lings

App

endi

x B

2: D

etai

l for

Tab

le 4

and

Tab

le 5

on

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

Tren

ds a

nd G

rade

-to-G

rade

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

es fr

om E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

*

Oct

.Su

bjec

tof

TKK

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

s20

1123

126

529

829

129

731

332

233

131

520

124

209

251

278

331

311

298

308

323

332

2013

921

424

025

729

233

730

929

631

632

820

1423

169

235

257

264

302

348

301

298

309

2015

3418

020

124

526

227

831

833

030

531

120

1625

185

193

210

247

262

285

307

337

316

2017

2414

819

221

721

925

726

127

630

933

520

1836

157

162

224

222

228

264

256

277

307

3-Ye

ar A

vera

ge A

dvan

cem

ent R

ate

1.07

1.11

1.02

1.03

1.02

0.97

1.01

1.01

Wei

ghte

d 4-

Year

Avg

. Adv

ance

men

t Rat

e***

**1.

101.

101.

021.

031.

030.

971.

011.

01

Dat

a by

Gra

de

App

endi

x B

2: D

etai

l for

Tab

le 4

and

Tab

le 5

on

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

Tren

ds a

nd G

rade

-to-G

rade

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

es fr

om E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

*

TK-8

Tot

al &

Cum

ulat

ive

Rat

e fr

om1s

t - 8

th**

**

2,66

32,

645

2,59

82,

506

2,46

42,

367

2,23

82,

133

1.18

1.19

App

endi

x B

2: D

etai

l for

Tab

le 4

and

Tab

le 5

on

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

Tren

ds a

nd G

rade

-to-G

rade

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

es fr

om E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

*

All

SFD

Cat

egor

ies

ATT

Mos

t Affo

rdab

le

App

endi

x B

2, p

age

2 of

4, w

ith fo

otno

tes

at th

e bo

ttom

of t

he fi

nal p

age

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

s20

1196

211

3112

2212

5212

9612

9113

9612

7712

9720

1231

967

1042

1205

1267

1311

1327

1301

1431

1295

2013

6293

810

5710

9012

3412

9713

3213

1813

2614

3620

1499

779

1009

1109

1129

1275

1310

1351

1348

1331

2015

134

839

853

1060

1127

1167

1291

1287

1375

1362

2016

106

824

875

908

1086

1126

1176

1281

1318

1388

2017

102

736

872

943

936

1094

1121

1168

1273

1328

2018

120

741

770

938

965

948

1120

1126

1177

1276

3-Ye

ar A

vera

ge A

dvan

cem

ent R

ate

1.05

1.07

1.03

1.01

1.01

1.00

1.01

1.01

Wei

ghte

d 4-

Year

Avg

. Adv

ance

men

t Rat

e***

**1.

061.

071.

021.

011.

010.

991.

011.

01

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

s20

1110

710

811

311

410

497

115

120

120

2012

512

411

410

211

611

311

610

811

611

520

1310

104

119

109

109

117

110

126

110

130

2014

1510

511

912

411

811

911

212

212

312

020

1530

118

115

121

120

112

109

109

116

116

2016

3211

412

410

612

311

810

910

911

010

920

1718

132

113

125

110

120

119

103

106

114

2018

2011

413

211

111

799

117

122

107

118

3-Ye

ar A

vera

ge A

dvan

cem

ent R

ate

1.01

0.97

1.00

0.95

0.99

0.99

1.01

1.03

Wei

ghte

d 4-

Year

Avg

. Adv

ance

men

t Rat

e***

**1.

030.

980.

980.

950.

970.

991.

001.

02

App

endi

x B

2, p

age

2 of

4, w

ith fo

otno

tes

at th

e bo

ttom

of t

he fi

nal p

age

11,1

2411

,177

11,0

9010

,740

10,4

9510

,088

9,57

39,

181

1.13

1.13 998

1,02

91,

044

1,07

71,

066

1,05

41,

060

1,05

70.

930.

89

App

endi

x B

2, p

age

2 of

4, w

ith fo

otno

tes

at th

e bo

ttom

of t

he fi

nal p

age



Type

**C

ateg

ory*

**

ATT

Affo

rdab

le a

nd M

odes

t

Mod

erat

e to

Hig

h A

men

ity(in

clud

ing

"Due

ts")

App

endi

x B

2: D

etai

l for

Tab

le 4

and

Tab

le 5

on

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

Tren

ds a

nd G

rade

-to-G

rade

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

es fr

om E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

*

Cla

ssifi

catio

n of

Exi

stin

g D

wel

lings

Oct

.Su

bjec

tof

TKK

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

s20

1148

144

943

039

833

331

126

723

725

820

1213

371

502

461

450

390

335

304

258

250

2013

3842

242

150

243

343

838

130

930

024

120

1466

399

459

459

431

433

398

355

307

298

2015

8343

544

045

145

240

740

037

832

629

920

1684

445

471

452

429

427

370

367

360

318

2017

7248

247

849

442

339

336

635

133

731

120

1883

459

474

463

439

364

364

325

319

306

3-Ye

ar A

vera

ge A

dvan

cem

ent R

ate

1.05

1.01

0.93

0.91

0.90

0.92

0.93

0.92

Wei

ghte

d 4-

Year

Avg

. Adv

ance

men

t Rat

e***

**1.

051.

000.

930.

910.

910.

920.

920.

93

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

s20

1136

236

239

937

433

531

030

625

126

720

1213

342

374

369

410

382

326

314

295

253

2013

1430

937

138

235

741

037

933

330

529

220

1444

330

359

375

376

340

395

373

327

293

2015

4933

835

335

937

934

133

339

036

529

920

1649

305

369

362

353

367

333

344

380

348

2017

4531

932

235

436

036

235

531

633

136

320

1847

295

327

315

347

349

341

329

296

306

3-Ye

ar A

vera

ge A

dvan

cem

ent R

ate

1.06

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.96

0.97

0.96

0.94

Wei

ghte

d 4-

Year

Avg

. Adv

ance

men

t Rat

e***

**1.

060.

990.

990.

970.

960.

970.

960.

94

App

endi

x B

2: D

etai

l for

Tab

le 4

and

Tab

le 5

on

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

Tren

ds a

nd G

rade

-to-G

rade

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

es fr

om E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

*

Dat

a by

Gra

de

TK-8

Tot

al &

Cum

ulat

ive

Rat

e fr

om1s

t - 8

th**

**

3,16

43,

334

3,48

53,

605

3,67

13,

723

3,70

73,

596

0.60

0.61

2,96

63,

078

3,15

23,

212

3,20

63,

210

3,12

72,

952

0.81

0.80

App

endi

x B

2: D

etai

l for

Tab

le 4

and

Tab

le 5

on

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

Tren

ds a

nd G

rade

-to-G

rade

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

es fr

om E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

*

All

ATT

Cat

egor

ies

App

endi

x B

2, p

age

3 of

4, w

ith fo

otno

tes

at th

e bo

ttom

of t

he fi

nal p

age

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

s20

1195

091

994

288

677

271

868

860

864

520

1231

837

990

932

976

885

777

726

669

618

2013

6283

591

199

389

996

587

076

871

566

320

1412

583

493

795

892

589

290

585

075

771

120

1516

289

190

893

195

186

084

287

780

771

420

1616

586

496

492

090

591

281

282

085

077

520

1713

593

391

397

389

387

584

077

077

478

820

1815

086

893

388

990

381

282

277

672

273

03-

Year

Ave

rage

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

e1.

051.

000.

960.

950.

930.

950.

950.

94W

eigh

ted

4-Ye

ar A

vg. A

dvan

cem

ent R

ate*

****

1.05

0.99

0.96

0.94

0.94

0.95

0.95

0.94

App

endi

x B

2, p

age

3 of

4, w

ith fo

otno

tes

at th

e bo

ttom

of t

he fi

nal p

age

7,12

87,

441

7,68

17,

894

7,94

37,

987

7,89

47,

605

0.72

0.72

App

endi

x B

2, p

age

3 of

4, w

ith fo

otno

tes

at th

e bo

ttom

of t

he fi

nal p

age



Type

**C

ateg

ory*

**

App

endi

x B

2: D

etai

l for

Tab

le 4

and

Tab

le 5

on

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

Tren

ds a

nd G

rade

-to-G

rade

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

es fr

om E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

*

Dw

ellin

g or

Stu

dent

Cla

ssifi

catio

n O

ct.

Subj

ect

ofTK

K1s

t2n

d3r

d4t

h5t

h6t

h7t

h8t

h

App

endi

x B

2: D

etai

l for

Tab

le 4

and

Tab

le 5

on

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

Tren

ds a

nd G

rade

-to-G

rade

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

es fr

om E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

*

Dat

a by

Gra

de

TK-8

Tot

al &

Cum

ulat

ive

Rat

e fr

om1s

t - 8

th**

**

App

endi

x B

2: D

etai

l for

Tab

le 4

and

Tab

le 5

on

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

Tren

ds a

nd G

rade

-to-G

rade

Adv

ance

men

t Rat

es fr

om E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

*

ALL

All

Exis

ting

(incl

udin

g re

sidu

alca

tego

ries

such

as

mix

ed ty

pe)

ALL

All

Are

as w

ith C

onse

quen

tial

New

Hou

sing

afte

r Sep

t. 20

10

Inco

min

g In

ter-

Dis

tric

t Atte

ndan

ce(b

ased

on

stat

ed h

ome

addr

esse

s)

* The

"exi

stin

g ho

usin

g" c

ateg

orie

s co

ntai

n ag

greg

ate

figur

es fr

om p

lann

ing

area

s w

ith v

irtua

lly n

o co

nseq

uent

ial n

et in

crea

se in

hou

sing

uni

ts s

ince

Sep

tem

ber 2

010.

** "S

FD" =

Sin

gle

Fam

ily D

etac

hed

hom

es; "

ATT"

= A

ttach

ed, f

or a

partm

ent,

cond

o, to

wnh

ouse

& s

mal

l ple

x un

its**

* C

ateg

orie

s ar

e su

bjec

tive

assi

gnm

ents

by

EP

C o

f the

dom

inan

t hou

sing

situ

atio

n in

eac

h pl

anni

ng a

rea;

som

e ar

eas

may

hav

e sm

all p

erce

ntag

es o

f oth

er c

ateg

orie

s.**

** F

or e

xam

ple,

the

thre

e-ye

ar a

vera

ge a

nnua

l adv

ance

men

t rat

e of

"1.0

5" e

nter

ing

first

gra

de fr

om "A

ll E

xist

ing"

in th

e C

US

D m

eans

that

the

stud

ent p

opul

atio

n in

crea

sed

by a

n av

erag

e of

5%

from

kin

derg

arte

n to

firs

t fro

m th

e sa

me

hous

ing

units

.**

*** T

he la

test

yea

r of c

hang

e ha

s be

en w

eigh

ted

at 1

50%

in th

e fo

ur-y

ear-

aver

age

calc

ulat

ions

.N

ote:

The

rate

s sh

own

are

the

actu

al c

alcu

late

d ra

tes.

The

se h

ave

been

mod

ified

whe

re w

arra

nted

in th

e pr

ojec

tions

.

App

endi

x B

2, p

age

4 of

4

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

s20

1119

3320

6521

8921

5720

8420

3420

9818

9819

5820

1262

1819

2058

2153

2268

2215

2122

2051

2115

1928

2013

125

1796

1983

2111

2149

2290

2215

2105

2068

2114

2014

226

1630

1967

2086

2080

2179

2240

2214

2122

2069

2015

301

1741

1777

2016

2095

2052

2148

2188

2199

2093

2016

271

1705

1855

1838

2014

2052

2012

2115

2191

2177

2017

239

1682

1801

1934

1840

1995

1976

1958

2059

2138

2018

272

1615

1722

1847

1883

1774

1965

1918

1920

2020

3-Ye

ar A

vera

ge A

dvan

cem

ent R

ate

1.05

1.03

0.99

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.99

0.98

Wei

ghte

d 4-

Year

Avg

. Adv

ance

men

t Rat

e***

**1.

061.

030.

990.

980.

980.

980.

990.

98

Res

iden

t Stu

dent

s20

119

66

93

610

69

2012

18

106

69

37

116

2013

02

98

86

93

712

2014

07

510

811

811

49

2015

625

1215

169

1414

1411

2016

318

2114

1819

1218

2213

2017

719

2019

1216

1912

1713

2018

526

1621

2413

1820

1413

IDA

Stu

dent

s20

1119

1813

1513

1416

3027

2012

016

2119

1515

1615

1832

2013

121

2122

1714

1913

1422

2014

722

2121

2022

1519

1621

2015

722

2920

2017

2017

1412

2016

632

2227

1920

1422

2116

2017

828

3221

2320

2618

2524

2018

926

3335

2325

2821

1928

* The

"exi

stin

g ho

usin

g" c

ateg

orie

s co

ntai

n ag

greg

ate

figur

es fr

om p

lann

ing

area

s w

ith v

irtua

lly n

o co

nseq

uent

ial n

et in

crea

se in

hou

sing

uni

ts s

ince

Sep

tem

ber 2

010.

** "S

FD" =

Sin

gle

Fam

ily D

etac

hed

hom

es; "

ATT"

= A

ttach

ed, f

or a

partm

ent,

cond

o, to

wnh

ouse

& s

mal

l ple

x un

its**

* C

ateg

orie

s ar

e su

bjec

tive

assi

gnm

ents

by

EP

C o

f the

dom

inan

t hou

sing

situ

atio

n in

eac

h pl

anni

ng a

rea;

som

e ar

eas

may

hav

e sm

all p

erce

ntag

es o

f oth

er c

ateg

orie

s.**

** F

or e

xam

ple,

the

thre

e-ye

ar a

vera

ge a

nnua

l adv

ance

men

t rat

e of

"1.0

5" e

nter

ing

first

gra

de fr

om "A

ll E

xist

ing"

in th

e C

US

D m

eans

that

the

stud

ent p

opul

atio

n in

crea

sed

by a

n av

erag

e of

5%

from

kin

derg

arte

n to

firs

t fro

m th

e sa

me

hous

ing

units

.**

*** T

he la

test

yea

r of c

hang

e ha

s be

en w

eigh

ted

at 1

50%

in th

e fo

ur-y

ear-

aver

age

calc

ulat

ions

.N

ote:

The

rate

s sh

own

are

the

actu

al c

alcu

late

d ra

tes.

The

se h

ave

been

mod

ified

whe

re w

arra

nted

in th

e pr

ojec

tions

.

App

endi

x B

2, p

age

4 of

4

18,4

1618

,791

18,9

5618

,813

18,6

1018

,230

17,6

2216

,936

0.92

0.93 64 67 64 73 136

158

154

170

165

167

164

184

178

199

225

247

* The

"exi

stin

g ho

usin

g" c

ateg

orie

s co

ntai

n ag

greg

ate

figur

es fr

om p

lann

ing

area

s w

ith v

irtua

lly n

o co

nseq

uent

ial n

et in

crea

se in

hou

sing

uni

ts s

ince

Sep

tem

ber 2

010.

***

Cat

egor

ies

are

subj

ectiv

e as

sign

men

ts b

y E

PC

of t

he d

omin

ant h

ousi

ng s

ituat

ion

in e

ach

plan

ning

are

a; s

ome

area

s m

ay h

ave

smal

l per

cent

ages

of o

ther

cat

egor

ies.

****

For

exa

mpl

e, th

e th

ree-

year

ave

rage

ann

ual a

dvan

cem

ent r

ate

of "1

.05"

ent

erin

g fir

st g

rade

from

"All

Exi

stin

g" in

the

CU

SD

mea

ns th

at th

e st

uden

t pop

ulat

ion

incr

ease

d

App

endi

x B

2, p

age

4 of

4

Cupertino Union School District Cupertino, CA …...Cupertino Union School District 10301 Vista...

Documents

Transcript of Cupertino Union School District Cupertino, CA …...Cupertino Union School District 10301 Vista...