What is the long term vision of how APS should match enrollment and capacity? Boundary changes versus expanded choices John McClelland, Ashlawn

The School Board’s Charge Elementary Crowding and Capacity Committee (ECCC) was established and charged “to consider any reasonable solution that over six years will: –Resolve crowding at Tuckahoe and potential crowding at other identified schools –Ensure that no other elementary school will be crowded as a result” Projections provided to the ECCC in November indicated that now eight elementary schools would be overcrowded at some point during the next six school years. These schools are Arlington Science Focus, Ashlawn, Barrett, Drew, Glebe, McKinley, Nottingham, and Tuckahoe.

Restrictions Within the Charge The Board’s charge to the ECCC specifies that the “reasonable solution” will: “Provide at least one Pre-K program of any type (e.g., Head Start, VPI, Montessori, Pre-K, Special education) at every elementary school. Not change the location, program or admissions procedures related to Arlington Traditional School or Drew Model School.”

Existing School Board policy regarding boundary changes recommendations establish the following criteria: “To the extent reasonably practicable, recommendation(s) shall: –Assign students to a school who reside in proximity to that school including those who live in safe walk zones. –Keep neighborhoods together. –Avoid creating elementary school boundaries that do not contain the school to which students are assigned. –Minimize transportation times. –Minimize future capital and operating budget costs. –Promote demographic diversity. –Avoid causing students who have continued to reside in a particular geographic area to be affected by boundary change more than once at a particular school level,... –Avoid separating small numbers of students from their classmates when they move to a school at the next level.”

Can the ECCC find a solution? I don’t think so. I believe that it is not in Arlington’s best interests to put forward a formal recommendation if we doubt that it: 1.Solves the immediate problem 2.Is consistent with a long term solution The problem is with “2” since we haven’t been given such a vision. The School Board should be encouraged to articulate such a vision.

How do we think of APS? Arlington has both a neighborhood school system and a significant choice system. The choice system isn’t just the presence of county-wide schools but also the fact that there is a wide ability to transfer to other neighborhood schools. We have seen proposals that emphasize neighborhood schools and others that emphasize choice schools.

What is the long term vision and how can we make decisions without one? Processes like the ECCC would be aided by a long term vision. Should Arlington be primarily a neighborhood school based system with a limited system choices layered over top? Or should Arlington view itself as a completely choice system with neighborhood schools being one of several choices?

Neighborhood School System Consistent with proposals such as: –Tuckahoe’s boundary changes –Henry’s moving transfer students back to neighborhood schools –Eliminating Barrett’s Cluster –Moving ATS or opening it up to neighborhood students –Converting Reed to a neighborhood school Enrollment is managed via occasional boundary changes and reassignment of students.

Choice School System Consistent with proposals such as: –Expanded transportation to Campbell and Randolph –Creating a second ATS –Elements of Long Branch’s proposal Not clear to me that there is an over-riding conceptual framework for managing enrollment under these proposals.

Controlled School Choice If Arlington is going to focus on providing education choices, how could a system be created that allowed APS staff to manage enrollment? Other school systems have utilized “Controlled School Choice” approaches. APS would present every family with a limited menu of options for which they rank their preferences. The school system then matches students to schools to jointly manage enrollment and satisfy preferences.

Controlled School Choice (2) Presumably such a system could provide a compete sibling preference. It would eliminate formal school boundaries but would provide a locality preference. Choices like immersion could be on everyone’s menu. Other choices might just be pushed/offered to limited parts of the county –E.g. you might just offer transportation to Randolph, Campbell to overcrowded areas

Approximate walk zones within the current school boundaries

Example #1: Planning Unit 1307 Please rank your preferences over the following schools: Arlington Traditional School Ashlawn Barrett Claremont Glebe Randolph

Example #1: Planning Unit 1307 Please rank your preferences over the following schools: 1 Arlington Traditional School 2 Ashlawn 3 Barrett 4 Claremont 5 Glebe 6 Randolph

Example #2: Planning Unit 1307 Please rank your preferences over the following schools: Arlington Traditional School Ashlawn Barrett Claremont Glebe Long Branch Randolph

Example #2: Planning Unit 1307 Please rank your preferences over the following schools: 1 Arlington Traditional School Ashlawn 3 Barrett 4 Claremont 5 Glebe 2 Long Branch 6 Randolph

Controlled School Choice (3) APS could continually tweak offerings. Effective school boundaries would creep over time. Provides more structure on the kindergarten enrollment process –Current system overwhelming to many –Provides opportunity to push choices to areas where there is potential crowding Could effectively cap kindergarten enrollment in each school.

Concluding Thoughts In constructing our statement to the School Board we should also advise them whether we believe that the ECCC is the right model for future efforts. Any immediate “fixes” should be consistent with, and linked to, a long term vision. –Neighborhood School System –Choice School System How can we encourage the School Board to clearly articulate such a vision?