1. SUPERINTENDENT’S RECOMMENDATIONS Capacity Utilization Arlington Public Schools December 3, 2009

2. Underlying Considerations These recommendations considered: previous boundary studies a commissioned study from MGT of America ongoing staff work the work of the Projections/Capacities Sub- Committee of the Facilities Advisory Council (P/CS), input from over 250 parents and citizens at − summer open houses with staff − Summer Superintendent Chats − e-mails to and open-office hours with the School Board − over 450 responses to an online survey

3. Community Input –Likes the schools their children currently attend –Reluctant to make boundary changes –Wants effective use of resources and capacity –Supports strategic use of relocatables –Supports reasoned changes Financial Climate Increasing Enrollment Maximizing Efficiency Underlying “Givens”

4. Current Practices Provide continuity and consistency of instruction Provide equal access to educational opportunities Recognize the value of diversity in enriching instruction Continue use of relocatables to manage capacity at individual sites Acknowledge the reluctance to move boundaries Manage resources efficiently

5. High CostLow Cost Most Aligned with Current Practices Least Aligned with Current Practices 6/7 Scheduling FEASIBILITY QUADRANTS – PRELIMINARY PLACEMENT Relocatables New Building Class Size Increase Two Bell Schedules Program Centers Convert Computer Labs Utilize Other County Space Team Options Countywide Options Flexible School Day Redistricting Move preK Classes III IIIIV

6. PhaseTiming Phase I – ImmediateSeptember 2010 Phase II – Short-Term1-3 Years Phase III – Mid-Term4-6 Years Phase IV – Long-term7+ Years Progressive Planning Model Approximate Timeline (may need to accelerated on a case-by-case basis)

7. ElementarySecondary Convert computer labs and/or other available space to classrooms (e.g., convert six existing computer labs to classrooms)* Implement 6/7 scheduling model Increase class size by 1* Add relocatable classrooms* Move individual preK classes * Options dependent on and to be addressed as part of the FY 2011 budget process Progressive Planning Model Phase I Immediate Action for September 2010

8. ElementarySecondary Add relocatable classrooms Convert computer labs and/or other available space to classrooms Increase class size by an additional 1 Progressive Planning Model Phase II Consider in the Short-Term (may need to be accelerated)

9. ElementarySecondary Consolidate program by creating centers (e.g., preK) Implement a staggered school day with two-bell schedules at high schools Utilize other county building space Consider flexible school day at high school Team options Countywide options Progressive Planning Model Phase III Consider in the Mid-Term (may need to be accelerated)

10. ElementarySecondary Develop Wilson siteRedistrict secondary schools Redistrict elementary schools Progressive Planning Model Phase IV Consider in the Long-Term (may need to be accelerated)

11. Progressive Planning Model Impact – Elementary Schools

12. Progressive Planning Model Impact – Middle Schools

13. Progressive Planning Model Impact – High Schools

14. School Capacity (Reflects Class Size Increase of 1) 2010 Pre-VPI Move2010 Post-VPI Move EnrollmentPercentEnrollmentPercent Barrett58358099.5%56496.7% Carlin Springs60059398.8%56193.5% Hoffman-Boston52736669.4%46287.7% Key659664100.8%64898.3% Oakridge588593100.9%56195.4% Progressive Planning Model Impact – Moving 6 VPI Classes to Hoffman-Boston in 2010 THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ONLY

15. School 2009 Capacity 2009 Utilization Additional Capacity (Labs & Relocatables) Site Capacity 2010 Utilization ASF 53094.7%+2255293.5% Ashlawn 41888.5%+2244090.5% Barrett 55395.3%+22598*97.0% Carlin Springs 563101.1%+22585101.4% Glebe 48991.8%+2251193.0% Henry 44689.0%+2246891.7% Jamestown 572100.5%+2259496.1% Nottingham 491109.8%+45603*97.4% Oakridge 551101.1%+22573103.5% Taylor 63197.8%+4567697.2% THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ONLY Progressive Planning Model Impact – Adding 12 Classrooms (conversions & relocatables) *Barrett and Nottingham’s total include current relocatables on site

16. Next Steps Implement each phase, or elements within a phase, as needed or revised to meet changing needs, challenges, and resources Monitor through an ongoing process including a twice yearly review of capacity and enrollment Monitor and evaluate process to allow for solutions to be fine-tuned in order to meet school-specific and system- wide needs. Continue, consistent with the cycle of improvement model (Plan, Do, Study, Act), the review and analysis of the MGT report Continue to work with the Projections/Capacities Sub- Committee of the Facilities Advisory Council (P/CS), to monitor the progress of addressing our capacity issues

17. Key Dates in the Process December 3, 2009 MGT of America's (Consultant) Report (School Board Presentation) December 3, 2009 Superintendent’s Recommendations to School Board (School Board Information Item) December 9, 2009 School Board Community Forum on Superintendent’s Recommendations December 17, 2009 School Board Action on Superintendent's Recommendations (School Board Action Item)

18. Proposed School Board Action The School Board approves the Progressive Planning Model, as described in the memorandum dated December 3, 2009, to address crowding, capacity, and enrollment at elementary and secondary schools. Any actions that require budgetary or policy changes must be approved by the School Board.

19. Information and materials related to process: http://www.apsva.us/elemcapacity In addition, the web page has an e-mail option for comments and suggestions. Web Page

20. SUPERINTENDENT’S RECOMMENDATIONS Capacity Utilization Arlington Public Schools December 3, 2009