1. Additional Approaches to Overcrowding Presented by: Arlington Traditional School

2. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding2 Goals  Reduce the magnitude of needed boundary changes.  Comply fully with the School Board Charge.  Supplement the excellent work done by such schools as Tuckahoe, Long Branch, Barrett, Campbell, and Randolph.  Let each affected school determine its own balance between non-boundary and boundary changes.

3. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding3 Assumptions & Methodology—1  Comply with all provisions of the School Board Charge.  At least one Pre-K program remains at each school.  One Pre-K program (VPI) is recommended for McKinley & Nottingham in order to comply with Charge.  Do not count dual enrollees.

4. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding4 Assumptions & Methodology—2  Our analysis has focused on schools that cannot control their enrollment. The schools that can will be able to control excess demand by lottery or transfer policy changes.  The schools that can control excess demand are:  Arlington Science Focus  Arlington Traditional  Barrett  Campbell  Claremont  Drew  Key  Randolph

5. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding5 Assumptions & Methodology—3  Limit Pre-K in overcrowded schools to only one program.  Other Spec. Ed. would be moved from Glebe to another school, assume Carlin Springs.  Interlude would be moved from Nottingham to another school, assume Carlin Springs.  Assume that all classes at overcrowded schools are at or are increased to their official planning factor of 22.33 students per grade on average.

6. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding6 Assumptions & Methodology—4  Assume that space utilization at each of the over- crowded schools will be reviewed to ensure that classroom space is maximized.  Assume that the APS transfer policy is being fully and correctly applied at each of the overcrowded schools.  Assume that each impacted school will determine its own policy on grand-fathering current attendees and siblings.

7. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding7 Current Projections  Based upon 11/7/2007 APS data, five schools that cannot control enrollment are projected to have demand in excess of capacity during this period, after excluding dual enrollees. Schools Projected to Have Excess Demand School200820092010201120122013 Ashlawn--(10)(25)(38)(40)(43) Glebe(32)(41)(34)(61)(33)(24) McKinley(37)(47)(71)(52)(89)(94) Nottingham(43)(82)(92)(93)(98)(108) Tuckahoe(63)(76) (83)(75)(81) Total(175)(256)(298)(327)(341)(350)

8. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding8 Action Item 1: Provide Busing  If ECCC adopts proposals that increase choice availability such as those submitted by:  Campbell  Randolph  Provide busing, piggybacking on existing routes as much as possible, for any affected school. (ATS can share buses with other choice programs.)

9. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding9 Action Item 1: Impact  Although new choice proposals are likely to draw some students from overcrowded schools, we cannot reliably estimate the volume of that impact.  Thus, this is not reflected in the following numbers.  Some estimate can be developed from previous boundaries process (Barrett).

10. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding10 Action Item 2: Consolidate Pre-K Montessori  Move Pre-K Montessori out of all elementary schools except Drew.  Relocate to under capacity school(s).  This creates significant educational synergies as well as capacity utilization benefits.

11. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding11 Action Item 2: Impact  Consolidating Pre-K Montessori reduces the total overcrowding problem by roughly 20%.  Biggest impact is at Glebe; it is no longer overcrowded.  Significant educational synergies in the Montessori program can be realized. School Projected to Have Excess Demand School200820092010201120122013 Current Projections (175)(256)(298)(327)(341)(350) After Consolidating Montessori (121)(183)(219)(221)(257)(278) Improvement5473791068472

12. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding12 Action Item 3: Increase Class Planning Factor Option  Impacted schools should be allowed to increase their average class planning factor to a level used by other schools in the county if they want to lessen boundary changes or don’t want to send transfers back to their home school.  These schools are:  Ashlawn  Glebe  McKinley  Nottingham  Tuckahoe

13. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding13 Action Item 3: Impact  If all affected schools were to opt to increase their average planning factor, the need for boundary changes would be reduced by about 20%. Schools Projected to Have Excess Demand School200820092010201120122013 Current Projections (175)(256)(298)(327)(341)(350) After Inc. Plan Factor (102)(173)(209)(238)(252)(261) Improvement728389

14. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding14 If All Three Actions Were Combined...  Adopt Campbell, & Randolph proposals— provide busing.  Consolidate Pre-K Montessori.  Increase Class Planning Factor Option.

15. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding15 Impact of Combining All Three Options Need for Boundary Changes After All Options School200820092010201120122013 Ashlawn-- (3) Glebe-- McKinley(20)(30)(54)(35)(72)(77) Nottingham--(39)(49)(50)(55)(65) Tuckahoe(41)(54) (61)(53)(59) Total(61)(124)(158)(147)(181)(202)

16. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding16 Comparison of Current Projections with Impact of Three Options Need for Boundary Changes School200820092010201120122013 Current Situation (175)(256)(298)(327)(341)(350) After Recommended Changes (61)(124)(158)(147)(181)(202) Improvement114132140180160148  The need for boundary changes would be reduced by about 40%.

17. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding17 Conclusions—1  Educationally sound options exist that could reduce the magnitude of boundary changes.  If adopted by all affected schools, the total number of students impacted by boundary changes could be reduced significantly.  We recommend that the above actions be combined with other proposals so that the impact of boundary changes may be reduced.

18. January 19, 2016Additional Approaches to Overcrowding18 Conclusions—2  The reduction in students moved should be used to lessen the impact on schools most affected by boundary changes. For example:  Lessen impact on McKinley;  Keep Arlington Forest at Barrett; and,  Respect historical school/neighborhood associations.