Student Assignment Analysis for the Lexington Public Schools Public Forum & School Committee Workshop March 16, 2016

Presentation Overview Part I: Context for Student Assignment Who has Been Involved? Goals for Today’s Forum The District’s Commitments Meeting Protocol During Scenario Review Part II: Review of Enrollment Growth & Scenarios Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

Setting the Context Why do we need to do this? Rapid and sustained enrollment growth o 15% or increase of 404 elementary students since Some areas of town are growing at higher rates than others o Has resulted in uneven pressure on space in schools We need both to increase our capacity and adjust our use of current space to achieve better parity for schools and all students

Who Has Been Involved? Superintendent and Administration School Committee Parent Student Assignment Committee Elementary Principals Consultant (AppGeo)

Goals for Today’s Public Forum Share the work completed to date Consider potential options; no decisions have been made Gather feedback and input from you Describe next steps Timeline for decisions Where to obtain more information How to provide additional input or ask additional questions

Student Assignment Project Updates Meetings & Information Gathering – Elementary School Principals December 1, February 3 & 29 – Student Assignment Committee Spring 2015, December 16, January 11, February 3 & 29 – School Committee Presentations February 2, March 8, April 26 Parent Forums: March 12 & 16 – Ongoing collaboration with Student Assignment Working Group

The District’s Commitments Avoid extremes of over- or under-utilization of school space No families will be split – siblings will attend the same elementary school Attempt to minimize impact on existing families Transportation provided to families in re-assigned areas No change to district-wide special education programs Target date for notification to families: no earlier than late May

Meeting Protocol for Today We will present several potential map scenarios – Each scenario will be presented in full – After each scenario, you may approach the mic to pose any clarifying questions and/or comments on that specific map If you have questions at the end, please write them down on the provided index cards or use the link to Google Doc provided on handout.

Enrollment Context for Student Assignment

Average Annual School District Growth Rates (Since ) Source: LPS ESTABROOK +2.40% +88 students FISKE +2.34% +84 students HASTINGS +0.34% +11 students BRIDGE +2.12% +81 students BOWMAN +2.48% +100 students HARRINGTON +1.25% +41 students Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

Current Enrollment As of February 29, 2016 Source: LPS ESTABROOK (+33) FISKE (+36) HASTINGS (+3) BRIDGE (+76) BOWMAN (+46) HARRINGTON (+6) Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools Projected Enrollment and Expected Student Increase for (50 th percentile projection, based on current district boundaries)

Continued Student Growth Current Enrollment (as of 2/29/16) Oct 1 Projection Bowman ± 42 Bridge ± 64 Fiske ± 50 Estabrook ± 45 Harrington ± 67 Hastings ± 28 Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

Potential Student Assignment Scenarios

Scenario Review General Comments Students potentially impacted in scenarios: Some incoming K without older elementary sibling Small number of current K (future 1 st graders) without older elementary sibling Incoming K data is based on census responses which is limited in its accuracy/completeness All 5-year views are based on current elementary students and expected kindergarteners Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

“Components” Areas considered for boundary change Criteria for defining components 1.Geographic – contiguous with district boundaries 2.Density of student population 3.Proximity to elementary schools 4.Walkability and ease of transportation *Colored dots represent all existing students (K-5) in each component Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

ESTABROOK Grade 1 +7 Grade K +4 HARRINGTON Grade K -7 Grade 1 +3 BRIDGE Grade K -4 HASTINGS Grade K +16 FISKE Grade K -5 Grade Potential Modest Scenario Strategy: 1.Fiske components to Estabrook & Harrington 2.Bridge, Harrington, Bowman components to Hastings Pros: 1.Utilizes space in Hastings 2.Bridge, Bowman and Harrington components picked for distance from school and transportation convenience – no walkability compromised 3.Fiske gets 1 st grade relief 4.Allows room for projected growth at Estabrook Cons: 1.Does not make immediate use of all space available at Estabrook 2.May impact current middle school feeder pattern or transportation experience for some students BOWMAN Grade K -4 Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

ESTABROOK Across Grades +73 HARRINGTON Across Grades -33 BOWMAN Across Grades -45 BRIDGE Across Grades -36 HASTINGS Across Grades +145 FISKE Across Grades -104 Potential Modest Scenario in 5 Years Using Current Student Locations and extrapolating 1.Bridge, Bowman and Harrington would get modest relief over 5 years 2.Fiske could potentially see significant relief 3.Hastings could have an additional 145 students 4.Keeping expected growth in mind, Estabrook may become over-crowded Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

ESTABROOK Grade K +11 Grade 1 +7 HARRINGTON Grade K -7 Grade 1 +3 BRIDGE Grade K -6 HASTINGS Grade K +16 FISKE Grade K -7 Grade Potential Larger Scale Scenario: Variation 1 Strategy: 1.Incoming K from Bowman, Bridge & Harrington to Hastings 2.South of Rte 2 from Bridge and Avalon Lexington Ridge from Bowman 3.Incoming K from Hastings and incoming K, 1 from Fiske to Estabrook Pros: 1.Utilizes some available space 2.Bowman, Bridge, Fiske get modest relief 3.Allows for projected growth at Estabrook next year Cons: 1.Does not make immediate use of all space available at Estabrook 2.Potential impact on later assignments for new Hastings 3.May impact MS feeder pattern or transportation BOWMAN Grade K -7 Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

ESTABROOK Grade K +11 Grade HARRINGTON Grade K -7 Grade 1 +3 HASTINGS Grade K +16 Grade Strategy: 1.Move K and 1 from Hastings to Estabrook to use Estabrook space Pros: 1.Utilizes space at Hastings & Estabrook 2.Bowman and Bridge get modest relief 3.Fiske gets relief in 1 st grade Cons: 1.Potential impact on later assignment changes for larger new Hastings 2.Long term risk of overcrowding at Estabrook 3.May impact current middle school feeder pattern or transportation experience for some students BOWMAN Grade K -7 FISKE Grade K -7 Grade BRIDGE Grade K -6 Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools Potential Larger Scale Scenario: Variation 2

ESTABROOK Grade K +11 Grade HARRINGTON Grade K -7 Grade 1 -4 HASTINGS Grade K +16 Grade Strategy: 1.Same as Scenario 1, but move K & 1 from all schools to use Estabrook space Pros: 1.Use space at Hastings & Estabrook 2.Bowman and Bridge get modest relief 3.Fiske gets relief in 1 st grade Cons: 1.Hastings gains 12 1 st graders 2.Potential impact on later assignments for new Hastings 3.Long term risk of overcrowding at Estabrook 4.May impact current middle school feeder pattern or transportation experience for some students BOWMAN Grade K -7 Grade 1 -9 FISKE Grade K -7 Grade BRIDGE Grade K -6 Grade 1 -7 Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools Potential Larger Scale Scenario: Variation 3

ESTABROOK Across Grades +180 HARRINGTON Across Grades -33 HASTINGS Across Grades +104 Potential Larger Scale Scenario in 5 Years BOWMAN Across Grades -71 FISKE Across Grades -131 BRIDGE Across Grades -49 Using current student locations and extrapolating 1.Bridge, Bowman and Harrington would potentially get significant relief over 5 years 2.Fiske could potentially see larger relief 3.Hastings could have an additional 104 students 4.Keeping expected growth in mind, Estabrook could be significantly over- crowded Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

Buffer Zones A “buffer zone” is defined as a specified area between two or more school assignment areas that permits individual addresses to be assigned to two or more schools. All other assignment area lines are fixed and students living within these boundaries are assigned to one school based on address. Brookline, Newton & Arlington use buffer zones Currently, the Lexington School Committee does not have an existing policy on the use of buffer zones Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

Fixed District Lines including Specified Buffer Zones Pros No impact on students already enrolled in schools Allows siblings to attend the same school Can be designed to target areas of high density/growth Allows for adjustments to maximize space use and better achieve parity across schools in response to population shifts Cons May create uncertainty for new families Administrative processes are reported to be time consuming No certainty that a specific buffer zone will adequately address overcrowding over time Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

Example of Buffer Zones from Surrounding Communities Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

Buffer Strategy Future Bowman/Bridge Buffer Future Hastings/Estabrook Buffer Strategy: 1.If a larger scale scenario is adopted then Estabrook will see potential overcrowding in 5 years. To manage growth, a buffer zone could be used between Hastings and Estabrook 2.Additional buffers could be located in 2 of areas of high density, Katahdin Dr & Avalon Main Campus Dr Pros: 1.Provides School District flexibility to manage enrollment and space use over time Cons: 1.Buffers are a new concept in Lexington 2.Administrative challenges Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

Scenario Recap Modest Approach has less impact on current district boundaries and while it may not meet near term goals of fully utilizing existing space, it anticipates the projected growth at Estabrook. Larger Scale Approach meets near-term goals of using available space, but will likely create overcrowding at Estabrook in the future. Buffer Zones, in combination with either of the approaches above, have been shown to be a successful strategy to mitigate overcrowding and support equitable distribution. Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

Next Steps Presentation/discussion at public forums – Estabrook - Today! – Clarke - March 16, 7-9PM Ongoing collaboration with Working Group to review feedback Student Assignment Committee Meetings – April 7 & 12 Refined recommendations to School Committee Meeting – April 26 Earliest decision – end of May Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

Have additional feedback or ideas? We would love to hear them at: For more information, visit the Lexington Public Schools website Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools

Thank you.

Lexington Homes Year Built Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools Note on Data: Data from Lexington Assessors database; querying on YearBuilt field. Not all condo developments have YearBuilt information.

Note on Data: Data from Lexington Assessors database; querying on LastSaleDate field. Presentation Prepared by Applied Geographics, Inc. and Lexington Public Schools Lexington Properties Last Sale Year