Student Reassignment Analysis for the Lexington Public Schools Project Introduction & Update for the LPS School Committee February 2, 2016

Presentation Overview Introduction to AppGeo Recent project overview – Newton Public Schools Lexington Public Schools - project understanding Lexington Student Reassignment Project update

Introduction to L ocated in Boston 25 years in business Over 600 clients in 35 states Core business is serving Cities and Towns in New England Trusted partner of local school districts: Newton, Winchester, Dedham, West Hartford

The Challenge: Significant population growth 3 schools rebuilt with increased capacity Fill larger schools and offer relief with minimal disruption Recent Project Overview: Newton Public Schools

Our Approach Very collaborative Created multiple scenarios using student locations and boundaries – “Components”= building blocks “Met the numbers”, then evaluated impact of each Formally presented options –Discussion & feedback –Refined & finalized

Example of Scenario

Final Outcome Consensus reached and recommendations accepted

Lexington Project Overview Phase 1 ( – anticipated vote by School Committee scheduled for April 26 th ) –Maximize use of available classrooms (Estabrook (2-3) + Hastings (1)) –6 modulars (2 each at Fiske, Bridge and Bowman) to relieve compression –Stay mindful of long-term development Phase 2 (Future – beyond school year) –Student re-assignment plan for a new Hastings School in either (without MSBA funds) or (with MSBA funds)

Data to be Used in Analysis Current enrollment numbers Projection numbers Planned school building projects Planned development in Town Locations of current students School district boundaries Bus routes/stops Major roads and other “barriers” Safe walking routes Other reference data

Key Project Success Factors Shared understanding of goals Clearly defined roles Transparency of process Acceptance that there is no “magic button” Collaboration

Student Assignment Project Updates Meetings & Information Gathering – Elementary School Principals 12/1/2015 Principals shared their concerns – Superintendent’s Ad Hoc Student Assignment Committee 12/16/2015; 1/11/2016 Parent representatives shared concerns and we worked on list of considerations and scenario evaluation criteria – Working Group 1/6/2016; 1/27/2016 Began work on initial scenario development

Student Assignment Project Updates Activities – Processing and evaluating existing data – Finalizing student assignment considerations – Establishing scenario evaluation criteria – Beginning to create scenario “building blocks”

Ad Hoc Student Assignment Committee Student Assignment Considerations A.Provide targeted relief to schools with space and class size. B.Maintain class size guidelines across the system with a focus on creating equitable class size across all elementary schools. C.Regain and maintain dedicated classroom space for art, music, and special education and English Language Learner programs. D.Explore the use of buffer areas as a tool to manage future enrollment growth. E.Take into account major roadways and any traffic implications that will have an impact on the safety of students. Maximize walkability with a goal to aligning to complete street policy. F.Maximize geographical continuity by respecting the geographic boundaries of existing neighborhoods. G.Minimize the impact of any change on current students (i.e. explore options such as the grandfathering of students and families).

Ad Hoc Student Assignment Committee Student Assignment Considerations H.Redistrict an address only once in 6 years (current policy is 5 years). I.Consider impact of elementary student assignment on middle school feeder patterns. J.Consider capacity of core spaces (cafeteria, library, gym, etc), in addition to the number of classroom available. K.Plan with the goal of leaving some room for growth while accounting for known/expected future residential developments. L.Avoid creating socio-economic disproportionality in student assignments. M.Consider impact of reassignment on transportation efficiency and costs by minimizing the need for busing. Consider existing bus routes as a starting point. N.Consider impact of reassignment on programming costs (e.g. moving special education programs)

LEXINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCENARIO EVALUATION CRITERIA MATRIX - DRAFT Rating Scale Favorable: 1 Neutral: 0 Not Favorable: -1 The scenario… EXAMPLE SCENARIOS ABC Comments ENROLLMENT 1. Re-assigns sufficient number of students in target grades to available spaces 2. Maintains class sizes within guidelines LONG TERM PLANNING 1. Does not adversely impact longer-term reassignment goals (new Hastings in ) 2. Maintains balance of feeder pattern to middle schools FAMILY IMPACT 1. Minimizes number of student changing elementary school 2. Avoids splitting of families between 2 elementary schools COMMUNITY 1. Uses geophysical characters (major roads, parks, water bodies) and existing neighborhoods to define boundaries 2. Maintains complete streets policy SUSTAINABILITY 1. Accounts for known or projected future growth in residential development 2. Uses buffer zones effectively for flexibility in future assignment FINANCIAL 1. Minimizes impact on transportation costs 2. Minimizes impact on staff costs during implementation TOTAL

Current Elementary Students Distribution by School Redistricting Analysis for Lexington Public Schools

Current Elementary Students Distribution by Grade

Redistricting Analysis for Lexington Public Schools Future ( ) Potential Kindergarten Student Distribution Data from Town Census

Kindergarten Data Caveats Last year 77.7% of census respondents eventually enrolled (276 of 355) Final Oct 1 enrollment was 448 – 93 more students than census – 172 students not included in census (38.4% of 448 total enrollment) – Makes projected distribution challenging

Next Steps Building potential scenarios for review Continued collaboration with: – Elementary School Principals – Working Group – Superintendent’s Ad Hoc Student Assignment Committee Scenario presentation to the School Committee on March 8, 2016 Presentations at scheduled public forums - March 12 and 16, 2016