Elementary Crowding and Elementary Crowding and Capacity CommitteeCapacity Committee

(ECCC)(ECCC)

Meeting #3Meeting #3

October 9, 2007October 9, 2007

Meeting AgendaMeeting Agenda

7:00 Housekeeping

7:15 Guiding Principles and Goals

7:30 September 30 Count

8:15 Small Group Discussions

8:45 Wrap-Up and Adjourn

Next Meeting: October 16

• To follow a course of action that will resolve the overcrowding at schools where the school building cannot or may not meet the needs of the school population, in a manner that can begin to be implemented in time for the 2008-2009 school year and in accordance with APS School Board

Policy 30-2.2 Boundaries

• Give priority to reducing crowding in K-5 population at all schools

• Pursue boundary change options only if non-boundary solutions are inadequate to resolving a problem,

• Use September 30, 2007 enrollment numbers in considering ideas/solutions in developing final recommendations

Guiding PrinciplesGuiding Principles

• To follow a course of action that will resolve the overcrowding at schools at 95% occupancy or those projected to be at 95% occupancy, in a manner that can begin to be implemented in time for the 2008-2009 school year and in accordance with APS School Board Policy 30-2.2 Boundaries

• Give priority to reducing crowding in preK-5 population at all schools

• Pursue boundary change options only if non-boundary solutions are inadequate to resolving a problem,

• Use September 30, 2007 enrollment numbers in considering ideas/solutions in developing final recommendations

Guiding PrinciplesGuiding Principles

• Use Meeting Guidelines in conducting day-to-day work of the committee

• Keep school communities updated and connected with ECCC process

• Propose recommendations that move the fewest students possible

• Improve oversight and management of existing enrollment tools (including but not limited to transfers, program planning, classroom usage, planning factor implementation, and class size to prevent future over/under enrollment)

• Create a standing citizen’s advisory committee, with APS staff support, to routinely monitor enrollment/capacity issues and to make recommendations on a regular and ongoing basis (e.g. ACI, Facilities, Budget, etc…) to avoid major efforts of this type in the future.

GoalsGoals

• Respect – for the Committee process, citizens, APS staff, schools, and the children we are discussing

• Principals and representatives will sit at the meeting tables; separate seating is provided for alternates and observers• Trust but verify – do not assume something you have heard via word-of-mouth is correct• Each school will receive one vote when there is a vote on resolving action items• Committee members should use discretion in talking about meeting discussions and

debates • Only voting members of the committee may submit proposals for committee consideration• Anonymous proposals will not be considered• Sixteen affirmative votes are required to pass a motion on substantive issues• Proposals up for consideration, to the extent possible, should be studied and analyzed by the APS staff to provide the committee information on the following:

-- To what extent will it solve the problem as defined by the committee?-- What impact, if any, will it have on other schools or existing programs at

other schools? -- What are the likely costs, or types of costs, of implementing the proposal?

To the degree that costs are unknown, APS staff should be consulted for potential estimations.

Meeting GuidelinesMeeting Guidelines

Meeting Schedule and Topics -- Revised 10/05/07Meeting Schedule and Topics -- Revised 10/05/07

MeetingMeeting DateDate Agenda/Discussion TopicsAgenda/Discussion Topics

11 9/10/079/10/07 • IntroductionIntroduction• Charge and Proposed TimelineCharge and Proposed Timeline• GoalsGoals• Guiding PrinciplesGuiding Principles• Review SuggestionsReview Suggestions

22 9/24/079/24/07 • Finalize Goals and Guiding PrinciplesFinalize Goals and Guiding Principles• Discussion of OptionsDiscussion of Options• Decision on Change of ScopeDecision on Change of Scope

33 10/9/0710/9/07 • Review September 30 countReview September 30 count• Finalize Goals and GuidelinesFinalize Goals and Guidelines

44 10/16/0710/16/07 • Review Impact of Options from 9/24Review Impact of Options from 9/24• Second Round of OptionsSecond Round of Options• Review Planning Unit DataReview Planning Unit Data

55 10/22/0710/22/07 • Continue Review of OptionsContinue Review of Options•

66 10/29/0710/29/07 • Review ProjectionsReview Projections• Review Impact of Options from 10/16Review Impact of Options from 10/16•

77 11/5/0711/5/07 • Finalize Options DetailsFinalize Options Details•

88 11/26/0711/26/07 • TBDTBD•

99 12/3/0712/3/07 • Review Draft RecommendationsReview Draft Recommendations•

1010 12/10/0712/10/07 • Confirm Final RecommendationsConfirm Final Recommendations

Enrollment & Capacity UpdateEnrollment & Capacity Update

• September 30 numbersSeptember 30 numbers

233 increase in PreK-12 from 2006233 increase in PreK-12 from 2006 207 increase in K12 from 2006207 increase in K12 from 2006 26 increase in PreK from 200626 increase in PreK from 2006 284 increase in PK-5 from 2006284 increase in PK-5 from 2006 258 increase in K-5 from 2006258 increase in K-5 from 2006

• Enrollment was 151 PK-12 students over projections or +0.8%Enrollment was 151 PK-12 students over projections or +0.8%

Total K-12 and PreK-12 Enrollment (September 30th), 1961-2007

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1961

1964

1967

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006

K-12 Enrollment

PreK-12 Enrollment

Elementary Enrollment

3 & 4 Pre-K

K-12 yr.old Pre-K Spec. Dual Other GRAND

ELEMENTARY K 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL Mont. VPI Ed. Enrl* Pre-K TOTAL

Abingdon 57 65 55 51 42 47 317 20 9 3 349

Arl. Science Foc.75 97 66 85 70 57 450 11 4 465

Arlington Trad. 69 66 66 68 71 67 407 16 3 426

Ashlawn 59 63 48 52 59 56 337 17 14 3 371

Barcroft 59 42 56 56 42 38 293 31 4 8 336

Barrett 94 86 63 53 43 51 390 15 32 8 445

Campbell 76 32 49 25 33 29 244 15 31 7 4 301

Carlin Springs 77 67 68 54 67 79 412 60 5 2 479

Claremont 89 71 87 58 63 41 409 31 16 3 1 460

Drew 72 83 67 72 66 56 2 418 72 30 8 528

Glebe 69 65 52 68 51 45 350 15 7 1 4 377

Henry 53 54 48 56 47 53 311 16 15 3 345

Hoffman-Boston53 36 40 54 34 50 267 32 24 7 2 332

Jamestown 83 71 90 105 71 103 523 16 6 1 546

Key 87 99 97 83 69 94 529 34 16 5 2 586

Long Branch 74 78 76 60 65 42 395 17 5 2 419

McKinley 75 75 67 59 68 54 398 12 4 414

Nottingham 65 100 68 74 64 71 442 8 450

Oakridge 79 78 68 75 55 52 407 30 6 4 447

Randolph 52 47 41 57 51 56 304 30 5 3 342

Reed 23 1 24

Taylor 106 94 91 94 113 95 593 4 597

Tuckahoe 87 120 81 92 84 103 567 6 8 7 588

TOTAL ELEM. 1610 1589 1444 1451 1328 1339 2 8763 259 380 146 68 11 9627

MIDDLE 6 7 8

Gunston 175 165 194 534 534

Jefferson 174 191 170 535 535

Kenmore 308 267 276 851 851

Swanson 240 243 270 753 753

Williamsburg 300 288 315 903 903

H-B Woodlawn 70 72 74 216 216

TOTAL MIDDLE 1267 1226 1299 3792 3792

SENIOR HIGH 9 10 11 12

Arl. Mill Cont.** 20 50 58 61 189 189

Langston Cont.** 8 15 26 45 94 94

Wakefield 391 365 375 240 1371 1371

Washington-Lee 427 397 328 366 1518 1518

Yorktown 454 433 412 385 1684 1684

H-B Woodlawn 96 83 104 91 374 374

TOTAL SR. HIGH 1396 1343 1303 1188 5230 5230

Stratford Prog. 0 4 2 3 4 5 17 35 35

TOTAL 1610 1589 1444 1451 1328 1339 1269 1230 1301 1399 1347 1308 1205 17820 864 18684

* Dual enrolled preschool special education students

NOTE: All special education students are included in grade level membership.

** These totals do not include special education or limited English proficient students age 22 and above or other students age 20 and above (adult students). There are 119 adult students enrolled at Arlington Mill and 5 adult students enrolled at Langsto

Preschool

ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLSPlanning and Evaluation

MEMBERSHIP BY GRADESeptember 30, 2007

Elementary School Capacities

K-5 x 22.33 Total PotentialClassroomsPlan Factor Classrooms Capacity Capacity

Abingdon 24 536 32 8 27 603 576Arl Science Focus20 447 16 21 469 463ATS* 18 420 16 6 MIPA (preK) 20 447 442Ashlawn 16 357 22 24 20 447 403Barcroft 18 402 32 8 21 469 442Barrett 20 447 32 22 8 6 MIPA 25 558 515Carlin Springs 22 491 64 8 27 603 563Campbell 15 335 32 22 8 19 424 397Claremont 20 447 16 44 8 24 536 515Drew 18 402 32 110 8 6 MIPA 27 603 558Glebe 15 335 22 8 12 Life Skills 19 424 377Henry 16 357 16 24 12 TOPS/Comm 22 491 409Hoffman-Boston22 491 32 44 8 6 MIPA 28 625 581Jamestown 24 536 22 8 6 MIPA 27 603 572Key 25 558 16 44 8 29 648 626Long Branch 21 469 16 8 23 514 493McKinley 17 380 22 18 402 402Nottingham 19 424 20 Interlude 21 469 444Oakridge 23 514 32 8 26 581 554Randolph 17 380 32 8 20 447 420Taylor 28 625 6 MIPA 29 648 631Tuckahoe 22 491 8 23 514 499TOTAL 439 9821 416 374 168 80 0 515 11500 10859

*Note: Average planning factor for ATS is 23.33 students.PageUpdated: 10/9/07

Other Spec Ed ProgramVPI Montessori PreK SE

Revised 10/10/2007

September 30 Counts against Projections and Capacity -- ECCC, October 9, 2007

PreK-12 Diff from % of Capacity Cap Util ELEMENTARY TOTAL Projection Projection Projection Capacity Utilization no dual en

Abingdon 349 356 -7 98.0% 576 60.6% 60.1% Arl. Science Foc. 465 460 5 101.1% 440 105.7% 104.8% Arlington Trad. 426 442 -16 96.4% 442 96.4% 96.4% Ashlawn 371 381 -10 97.4% 403 92.1% 91.3% Barcroft 336 308 28 109.1% 442 76.0% 74.2% Barrett 445 405 40 109.9% 515 86.4% 86.4% Campbell 301 259 42 116.2% 397 75.8% 74.8% Carlin Springs 479 496 -17 96.6% 563 85.1% 84.7% Claremont 460 459 1 100.2% 515 89.3% 89.1% Drew 528 514 14 102.7% 558 94.6% 94.6% Glebe 377 367 10 102.7% 377 100.0% 99.7% Henry 345 360 -15 95.8% 409 84.4% 83.6% Hoffman-Boston 332 349 -17 95.1% 581 57.1% 56.8% Jamestown 546 532 14 102.6% 572 95.5% 95.3% Key 586 596 -10 98.3% 626 93.6% 93.3% Long Branch 419 420 -1 99.8% 493 85.0% 84.6% McKinley 414 389 25 106.4% 402 103.0% 102.0% Nottingham 450 448 2 100.4% 444 101.4% 99.5% Oakridge 447 446 1 100.2% 554 80.7% 80.0% Randolph 342 344 -2 99.4% 420 81.4% 80.7% Reed 24 30 -6 80.0% Taylor 597 568 29 105.1% 631 94.6% 94.0% Tuckahoe 588 589 -1 99.8% 499 117.8% 116.2% TOTAL ELEM. 9627 9518 109 101.1%

MIDDLE

Gunston 534 555 -21 96.2% 798 66.9% Jefferson 535 541 -6 98.9% 812 65.9% Kenmore 851 776 75 109.7% 850 100.1% Swanson 753 752 1 100.1% 815 92.4% Williamsburg 903 877 26 103.0% 850 106.2% H-B Woodlawn 216 207 9 104.3% 205 105.4% TOTAL MIDDLE 3792 3708 84 102.3% 4330 87.6%

SENIOR HIGH

Arl. Mill Cont. 189 231 -42 81.8% Langston Cont. 94 75 19 125.3% Wakefield 1371 1384 -13 99.1% 1564 87.7% Washington-Lee 1518 1544 -26 98.3% 1468 103.4% Yorktown 1684 1649 35 102.1% 1595 105.6% H-B Woodlawn 374 389 -15 96.1% 358 104.5% TOTAL SR. HIGH 5230 5272 -42 99.2%

Stratford Prog. 35 35 0 100.0% TOTAL 18684 18533 151 100.8%

Submitted by Lee Morales, Nottingham

1. Spread the Hoffman-Boston population across adjacent neighborhood schools. Then, move the ATS Program, with no changes as it exists today, into the Hoffman-Boston facility, thereby freeing up and using the current ATS Program Facility on George Mason Drive as a new neighborhood school. The existing staff from H-B would be the staff at

the newly created neighborhood school at the George Mason Drive facility.

2. Reconsider the admission (boundary) policies for Immersion Schools (i.e., Claremont and Key) so as to allow students from the Northwest part of APS to apply for admittance to Key. By allowing students from

the overcrowded Northwest schools to attend Key, you create opportunities for families to take advantage of the Immersion Program from these schools who otherwise would not have gone to Immersion because of the long commute from the Northwest to Claremont.

3. Reconsider the planned space usage at the Reed Center to house multiple Preschool programs from overcrowded schools in the area and move

the planned employee childcare facility to a facility or space not needed by overcrowded APS students.

Submitted by Lee Morales, Nottingham

4. Relocate the County-wide Interlude Program from Nottingham to the Langston-Brown Center or any other location that is currently or projected to be under capacity.

5. Explore year-round calendar options across overcrowded schools or the County.

Submitted by Dave Hawkins, Campbell

Expand bus transportation to the entire county for students electing to attend Campbell Elementary to help alleviate overcrowding in Arlington County Schools by ensuring that Campbell is a realistic choice option for families needing transportation services.

Submitted by Kate Mesches, McKinley

Idea: New Choice School Option/Expanding Traditional Choice

• Work with this Committee and APS staff to identify the most advantageous location for the implementation of a 2nd “traditional learning” PreK-5 program and creating 2 traditional “area choice schools” with attendance zones based on the immersion schools model

of Key/Claremont.

Idea: Reed School

• Move the Children’s School to Langston or another under-enrolled APS facility.

• Move Teen Parenting program to Langston or another under-enrolled APS facility.

• Ask the Reed School design to include plans to implement a new neighborhood school program at the site as instructed by the School Board.

Submitted by Kate Mesches, McKinley

Idea: A Collection of Solutions Implemented Together to Ease Over-Enrollment

Tuckahoe• Help Tuckahoe ensure all class sizes are up to Countywide levels

combining classes where possible to maximize use of classroom space • Work with Tuckahoe to identify planning units (possibly a combination

of 1609, 1608, 1607) to Glebe.• Temporarily move Tuckahoe’s Special Ed Pre-K (with the goal of

returning it or another Pre-K program to Tuckahoe within 5 years) to an under-enrolled school.

Glebe• Work with Glebe to identify programs to be moved (possibly Life

Skills program, Pre-K Special Ed* or Montessori*) to an under-enrolled facility to allow room for new Tuckahoe planning units.

*Any Pre-K program(s) would be only be moved with the intention of returning at least one program to Glebe within 5 years).

Submitted by Kate Mesches, McKinley

Idea: A Collection of Solutions Implemented Together to Ease Over-Enrollment

McKinley• Create a walk zone for ATS from planning units 1410, 1411 and

possibly 1408 from within the McKinley boundary. APS students in these units could chose between McKinley (their neighborhood school) or ATS.

Nottingham• Analyze Nottingham’s use of 5 newly constructed classroom spaces

(ESOL/HILT, Special Ed, OT/PT, Gifted and Speech) to determine if they can be combined/shared to allow for K-5 space

• Move Nottingham’s Interlude program to an under-enrolled APS facility.

All Currently Over-Enrolled Schools• Freeze all transfers (instructional, professional, etc…) until each school

reaches 90-95% capacity or under.*Move all pre-K programs from currently overcrowded schools temporarily to maximize classroom space with the goal of returning one to each within 5 years.

Submitted by Shirley Jones, Barcroft

1. Under-utilized elementary schools could implement Montessori pre-school programs.

2. Under-utilized elementary schools could implement county-wide enrollment with transportation (like the immersion schools currently offer).

3. APS could create another "academic excellence" program like ATS at an under-utilized school.

4. APS could consider re-working boundaries from an East-West perspective vs. North-South.

Submitted by Todd McCracken, Tuckahoe

1. Far-reaching boundary changes should be considered, to help ensure that any solution is long-lasting and not merely a "band-aid" or

temporary.

2. Move the ATS program to an appropriate site in an under-enrolled part of the county, moving the planning units from that school to the surrounding neighborhood schools. Utilizing the current ATS building,

create a new school attendance area out of the:

-- current eastern end of the Tuckahoe attendance area (1606, 1607,1608, and 1609 should be considered),

-- southern and western parts of Glebe (1501 1502, and/or 1512)eastern McKinley (1408, 1409, and 1411, and perhaps 1407

and/or 1410), and -- appropriate units of Ashlawn, if the numbers warrant.

3. Move the eastern part of Nottingham (1706, 1707, and 1708 could be considered) to Glebe. Depending upon projections, one or all those units could also be moved to Jamestown and/or Taylor. If projections warrant, Tuckahoe's 1603 could be moved to Nottingham.

Submitted by Rebecca Krafft, Randolph

We would like to see the current policy on academic transfers changed to allow transfers to be based on the available space in the school – essentially that academic transfers would be allowed until a school reaches 95% of its capacity.

Submitted by Wally Hays, Long Branch

Hybrid Option for Alleviating Crowding at Tuckahoe and McKinley

Long Branch believes that a hybrid method employing a combination of the tools available can move our most crowded schools well below 100% capacity within the timeframe prescribed by the charge and create tools to maintain appropriate enrollment levels thereafter. To do this, we propose to:

• Discount all dual enrollees as we did with the Board’s agreement in 2004.• Move the Special Ed preschool from Tuckahoe at least temporarily.• Freeze ALL incoming transfers except for the “Special and Administrative” transfers for Tuckahoe, McKinley and Glebe and let the current 86 transfers attrition out. (17, 15, 54).• Set aside a small number of seats (15 total) 5 each at Key, ASF, ATS – schools with sufficient demand – for transfers from overcrowded schools. • Move planning unit 1609 (30 kids) to Glebe.• Designate Long Branch as the alternative to Key for all of Woodbury Park to help offset the impact of kids coming into ASF.

Submitted by Karla Hagan, Montessori

An APS Montessori school as an attractive option for Arlington families that would provide a key component to the solution of overcrowding.  

Montessori is popular countywide; there are over 500 kids in Montessori classrooms in 10 different schools; the program at Drew has quadrupled in the last decade; there are hundreds of kids on Montessori preschool wait lists.  The creation of an APS Montessori school would relieve overcrowding at Drew as well as draw kids from all over the county and would provide a safety valve on overcrowding, no matter where the overcrowding exists.