1. Elementary Crowding and Capacity Committee (ECCC) Meeting #3 October 9, 2007

2. Meeting Agenda 7:00Housekeeping 7:15Guiding Principles and Goals 7:30September 30 Count 8:15Small Group Discussions 8:45Wrap-Up and Adjourn Next Meeting:October 16

3. To follow a course of action that will resolve the overcrowding at schools where the school building cannot or may not meet the needs of the school population, in a manner that can begin to be implemented in time for the 2008-2009 school year and in accordance with APS School Board Policy 30-2.2 Boundaries Give priority to reducing crowding in K-5 population at all schools Pursue boundary change options only if non-boundary solutions are inadequate to resolving a problem, Use September 30, 2007 enrollment numbers in considering ideas/solutions in developing final recommendations Guiding Principles

4. To follow a course of action that will resolve the overcrowding at schools at 95% occupancy or those projected to be at 95% occupancy, in a manner that can begin to be implemented in time for the 2008-2009 school year and in accordance with APS School Board Policy 30-2.2 Boundaries Give priority to reducing crowding in preK-5 population at all schools Pursue boundary change options only if non-boundary solutions are inadequate to resolving a problem, Use September 30, 2007 enrollment numbers in considering ideas/solutions in developing final recommendations Guiding Principles

5. Use Meeting Guidelines in conducting day-to-day work of the committee Keep school communities updated and connected with ECCC process Propose recommendations that move the fewest students possible Improve oversight and management of existing enrollment tools (including but not limited to transfers, program planning, classroom usage, planning factor implementation, and class size to prevent future over/under enrollment) Create a standing citizen’s advisory committee, with APS staff support, to routinely monitor enrollment/capacity issues and to make recommendations on a regular and ongoing basis (e.g. ACI, Facilities, Budget, etc…) to avoid major efforts of this type in the future. Goals

6. Respect – for the Committee process, citizens, APS staff, schools, and the children we are discussing Principals and representatives will sit at the meeting tables; separate seating is provided for alternates and observers Trust but verify – do not assume something you have heard via word-of-mouth is correct Each school will receive one vote when there is a vote on resolving action items Committee members should use discretion in talking about meeting discussions and debates Only voting members of the committee may submit proposals for committee consideration Anonymous proposals will not be considered Sixteen affirmative votes are required to pass a motion on substantive issues Proposals up for consideration, to the extent possible, should be studied and analyzed by the APS staff to provide the committee information on the following: -- To what extent will it solve the problem as defined by the committee? -- What impact, if any, will it have on other schools or existing programs at other schools? -- What are the likely costs, or types of costs, of implementing the proposal? To the degree that costs are unknown, APS staff should be consulted for potential estimations. Meeting Guidelines

7. Meeting Schedule and Topics -- Revised 10/05/07 MeetingDate Agenda/Discussion Topics 19/10/07 Introduction Introduction Charge and Proposed Timeline Charge and Proposed Timeline Goals Goals Guiding Principles Guiding Principles Review Suggestions Review Suggestions 29/24/07 Finalize Goals and Guiding Principles Finalize Goals and Guiding Principles Discussion of Options Discussion of Options Decision on Change of Scope Decision on Change of Scope 310/9/07 Review September 30 count Review September 30 count Finalize Goals and Guidelines Finalize Goals and Guidelines 410/16/07 Review Impact of Options from 9/24 Review Impact of Options from 9/24 Second Round of Options Second Round of Options Review Planning Unit Data Review Planning Unit Data 510/22/07 Continue Review of Options Continue Review of Options 610/29/07 Review Projections Review Projections Review Impact of Options from 10/16 Review Impact of Options from 10/16 711/5/07 Finalize Options Details Finalize Options Details 811/26/07 TBD TBD 912/3/07 Review Draft Recommendations Review Draft Recommendations 1012/10/07 Confirm Final Recommendations Confirm Final Recommendations

8. Enrollment & Capacity Update September 30 numbersSeptember 30 numbers  233 increase in PreK-12 from 2006  207 increase in K12 from 2006  26 increase in PreK from 2006  284 increase in PK-5 from 2006  258 increase in K-5 from 2006 Enrollment was 151 PK-12 students over projections or +0.8%Enrollment was 151 PK-12 students over projections or +0.8%

11. Revised 10/10/2007

13. Submitted by Lee Morales, Nottingham 1.Spread the Hoffman-Boston population across adjacent neighborhood schools. Then, move the ATS Program, with no changes as it exists today, into the Hoffman-Boston facility, thereby freeing up and using the current ATS Program Facility on George Mason Drive as a new neighborhood school. The existing staff from H-B would be the staff at the newly created neighborhood school at the George Mason Drive facility. 2.Reconsider the admission (boundary) policies for Immersion Schools (i.e., Claremont and Key) so as to allow students from the Northwest part of APS to apply for admittance to Key. By allowing students from the overcrowded Northwest schools to attend Key, you create opportunities for families to take advantage of the Immersion Program from these schools who otherwise would not have gone to Immersion because of the long commute from the Northwest to Claremont. 3.Reconsider the planned space usage at the Reed Center to house multiple Preschool programs from overcrowded schools in the area and move the planned employee childcare facility to a facility or space not needed by overcrowded APS students.

14. Submitted by Lee Morales, Nottingham 4.Relocate the County-wide Interlude Program from Nottingham to the Langston-Brown Center or any other location that is currently or projected to be under capacity. 5.Explore year-round calendar options across overcrowded schools or the County.

15. Submitted by Dave Hawkins, Campbell Expand bus transportation to the entire county for students electing to attend Campbell Elementary to help alleviate overcrowding in Arlington County Schools by ensuring that Campbell is a realistic choice option for families needing transportation services.

16. Submitted by Kate Mesches, McKinley Idea: New Choice School Option/Expanding Traditional Choice Work with this Committee and APS staff to identify the most advantageous location for the implementation of a 2nd “traditional learning” PreK-5 program and creating 2 traditional “area choice schools” with attendance zones based on the immersion schools model of Key/Claremont. Idea: Reed School Move the Children’s School to Langston or another under-enrolled APS facility. Move Teen Parenting program to Langston or another under-enrolled APS facility. Ask the Reed School design to include plans to implement a new neighborhood school program at the site as instructed by the School Board.

17. Submitted by Kate Mesches, McKinley Idea: A Collection of Solutions Implemented Together to Ease Over- Enrollment Tuckahoe Help Tuckahoe ensure all class sizes are up to Countywide levels combining classes where possible to maximize use of classroom space Work with Tuckahoe to identify planning units (possibly a combination of 1609, 1608, 1607) to Glebe. Temporarily move Tuckahoe’s Special Ed Pre-K (with the goal of returning it or another Pre-K program to Tuckahoe within 5 years) to an under-enrolled school. Glebe Work with Glebe to identify programs to be moved (possibly Life Skills program, Pre-K Special Ed* or Montessori*) to an under-enrolled facility to allow room for new Tuckahoe planning units. *Any Pre-K program(s) would be only be moved with the intention of returning at least one program to Glebe within 5 years).

18. Submitted by Kate Mesches, McKinley Idea: A Collection of Solutions Implemented Together to Ease Over- Enrollment McKinley Create a walk zone for ATS from planning units 1410, 1411 and possibly 1408 from within the McKinley boundary. APS students in these units could chose between McKinley (their neighborhood school) or ATS. Nottingham Analyze Nottingham’s use of 5 newly constructed classroom spaces (ESOL/HILT, Special Ed, OT/PT, Gifted and Speech) to determine if they can be combined/shared to allow for K-5 space Move Nottingham’s Interlude program to an under-enrolled APS facility. All Currently Over-Enrolled Schools Freeze all transfers (instructional, professional, etc…) until each school reaches 90-95% capacity or under. *Move all pre-K programs from currently overcrowded schools temporarily to maximize classroom space with the goal of returning one to each within 5 years.

19. Submitted by Shirley Jones, Barcroft 1.Under-utilized elementary schools could implement Montessori pre- school programs. 2.Under-utilized elementary schools could implement county-wide enrollment with transportation (like the immersion schools currently offer). 3.APS could create another "academic excellence" program like ATS at an under-utilized school. 4.APS could consider re-working boundaries from an East-West perspective vs. North-South.

20. Submitted by Todd McCracken, Tuckahoe 1. Far-reaching boundary changes should be considered, to help ensure that any solution is long-lasting and not merely a "band-aid" or temporary. 2. Move the ATS program to an appropriate site in an under-enrolled part of the county, moving the planning units from that school to the surrounding neighborhood schools. Utilizing the current ATS building, create a new school attendance area out of the: -- current eastern end of the Tuckahoe attendance area (1606, 1607,1608, and 1609 should be considered), -- southern and western parts of Glebe (1501 1502, and/or 1512) eastern McKinley (1408, 1409, and 1411, and perhaps 1407 and/or 1410), and -- appropriate units of Ashlawn, if the numbers warrant. 3. Move the eastern part of Nottingham (1706, 1707, and 1708 could be considered) to Glebe. Depending upon projections, one or all those units could also be moved to Jamestown and/or Taylor. If projections warrant, Tuckahoe's 1603 could be moved to Nottingham.

21. Submitted by Rebecca Krafft, Randolph We would like to see the current policy on academic transfers changed to allow transfers to be based on the available space in the school – essentially that academic transfers would be allowed until a school reaches 95% of its capacity.

22. Submitted by Wally Hays, Long Branch Hybrid Option for Alleviating Crowding at Tuckahoe and McKinley Long Branch believes that a hybrid method employing a combination of the tools available can move our most crowded schools well below 100% capacity within the timeframe prescribed by the charge and create tools to maintain appropriate enrollment levels thereafter. To do this, we propose to: Discount all dual enrollees as we did with the Board’s agreement in 2004. Move the Special Ed preschool from Tuckahoe at least temporarily. Freeze ALL incoming transfers except for the “Special and Administrative” transfers for Tuckahoe, McKinley and Glebe and let the current 86 transfers attrition out. (17, 15, 54). Set aside a small number of seats (15 total) 5 each at Key, ASF, ATS – schools with sufficient demand – for transfers from overcrowded schools. Move planning unit 1609 (30 kids) to Glebe. Designate Long Branch as the alternative to Key for all of Woodbury Park to help offset the impact of kids coming into ASF.

23. Submitted by Karla Hagan, Montessori An APS Montessori school as an attractive option for Arlington families that would provide a key component to the solution of overcrowding. Montessori is popular countywide; there are over 500 kids in Montessori classrooms in 10 different schools; the program at Drew has quadrupled in the last decade; there are hundreds of kids on Montessori preschool wait lists. The creation of an APS Montessori school would relieve overcrowding at Drew as well as draw kids from all over the county and would provide a safety valve on overcrowding, no matter where the overcrowding exists.