SUPERINTENDENT’S SUPERINTENDENT’S RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

Capacity UtilizationCapacity Utilization

Arlington Public SchoolsDecember 3, 2009

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

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”

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

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

I II

III IV

Phase Timing

Phase I – Immediate September 2010

Phase II – Short-Term 1-3 Years

Phase III – Mid-Term 4-6 Years

Phase IV – Long-term 7+ Years

Progressive Planning Model Approximate Timeline

(may need to accelerated on a case-by-case basis)

Elementary Secondary

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* 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 IImmediate Action for September 2010

Elementary Secondary

Add relocatable classrooms Add relocatable classrooms

Convert computer labs and/or other available space to classrooms

Increase class size by an additional 1

Increase class size by an additional 1

Progressive Planning Model Phase II Consider in the Short-Term (may need to be accelerated)

Elementary Secondary

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 IIIConsider in the Mid-Term (may need to be accelerated)

Elementary Secondary

Develop Wilson site Redistrict secondary schools

Redistrict elementary schools

Progressive Planning Model Phase IVConsider in the Long-Term (may need to be accelerated)

Progressive Planning Model Impact – Elementary Schools

Progressive Planning Model Impact – Middle Schools

Progressive Planning Model Impact – High Schools

School  

Capacity (Reflects Class

Size Increase of 1)

2010 Pre-VPI Move 2010 Post-VPI Move

Enrollment Percent Enrollment Percent

Barrett 583 580 99.5% 564 96.7%

Carlin Springs 600 593 98.8% 561 93.5%

Hoffman-Boston 527 366 69.4% 462 87.7%

Key 659 664 100.8% 648 98.3%

Oakridge 588 593 100.9% 561 95.4%

Progressive Planning Model Impact – Moving 6 VPI Classes to Hoffman-Boston in 2010

THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ONLY

School  

2009Capacity

2009 Utilization

AdditionalCapacity(Labs &

Relocatables) Site

Capacity

2010Utilization

ASF 530 94.7% +22 552 93.5%

Ashlawn 418 88.5% +22 440 90.5%

Barrett 553 95.3% +22 598* 97.0%

CarlinSprings 563 101.1% +22 585 101.4%

Glebe 489 91.8% +22 511 93.0%

Henry 446 89.0% +22 468 91.7%

Jamestown 572 100.5% +22 594 96.1%

Nottingham 491 109.8% +45 603* 97.4%

Oakridge 551 101.1% +22 573 103.5%

Taylor 631 97.8% +45 676 97.2%

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

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

Key Dates in the ProcessKey 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)

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.

Information and materials related to Information and materials related to process:process:

http://www.apsva.us/http://www.apsva.us/elemcapacityelemcapacity

In addition, the web page has an e-mail option for comments and suggestions.

Web PageWeb Page

SUPERINTENDENT’S SUPERINTENDENT’S RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

Capacity UtilizationCapacity Utilization

Arlington Public SchoolsDecember 3, 2009