Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enrollment Projections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Demographer projects modest district growth under most likely scenario; board asks for table corrections
Summary
A contracted demographer presented three enrollment projection scenarios (A=low, B=most likely, C=high) and recommended the district prepare for modest growth under the most likely scenario; board members asked for corrected tables where a 6–8 subtotal was misprinted and requested follow-up materials.
A demographer presenting by video to the Park Ridge CCSD 64 Board reviewed housing, population and enrollment trends and provided three projection series for district enrollment through 2034: series A (lower-turnover scenario), series B (most likely) and series C (higher-turnover scenario).
The presenter said the district’s future enrollment will be driven primarily by housing turnover and family migration rather than new construction. He told the board that in his professional judgment the series B projection was the most likely and that the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) household projections historically tended to be high. “The series b is the most likely,” he said, and later added, “I’ve always found the CMAP projections high.”
The demographer reviewed cohort‑survival and migration-transfer drivers, noting kindergarten class size swings altered multi-year forecasts and emphasizing the need to update projections every few years. He also said births by ZIP code show stability and that multifamily development typically yields fewer students per unit than single-family construction.
Board members pointed out a presentation table labeling error in the middle-school slides: a row labeled "6 through 8" should have been a subtotal and in the slide printout appeared to include an incorrect value. The presenter acknowledged the error and agreed to send corrected tables and the full report. "That that that 6 to 8 should be a sum," he said; administrators asked for the corrected tables to be redistributed.
The demographer provided ranges: series A would show an 11% decline over ten years under low turnover; series B (most likely) shows modest growth (about 3% in the period cited); series C shows an upper bound of about 12% growth if migration and turnover exceed expectations. He recommended revisiting the projections in two to three years and promised to supply corrected tables.
No formal board action was taken; board members thanked the presenter and asked administration to circulate corrected figures and the report.
