School divisions throughout Northern Virginia have seen dramatic increases in enrollments in the past couple of years. In fact, ACPS had the largest percentage increase in VA last year, the fifth largest increase in actual numbers. Most demographers predict that these trends will continue throughout the region as our local economies are stronger than the rest of the country and as DC continues to be one of the most desirable metropolitan areas in the country. ACPS is at its highest enrollment since 1978 and we are currently predicting the increase to continue.
We are able to make pretty solid predictions about the total number of future ACPS students and about where new families will move in Alexandria. Yet, because there is some uncertainty about predictions, I am proposing a conservative approach for the next several years even as we plan to address severe crowding and aging facility issues which already exist. We are already over capacity in some schools. Some elementary schools are out of space and couldn’t even hold new classes if we were to approve new sections. We must plan to accommodate additional students while being mindful of the current economic situation and being flexible enough to make adjustments as needed.
One approach I have asked the School Board to consider is Modified Open Enrollment.
This approach will place grade level caps on schools that are over capacity, and is an efficient use of space and teachers that will result in lower costs for facilities and personnel while keeping class sizes small. As new families enroll in grade levels at schools that are over-capacity, we will work with them to choose a different Alexandria school with space at their child’s grade level. We’ve already been doing this at Samuel Tucker. As grade levels have met capacity, new students enrolling at that grade level have been enrolled in another west end school, preventing Tucker classrooms from exceeding 25 students.
What we also need are at least two new schools, which are included in the proposed Capital Improvements Plan. We are proposing classroom additions at several sites in 2011-12, but until new schools are built and others expanded, Modified Open Enrollment will ensure all students are accommodated and class sizes are kept small. Modified Open Enrollment is a solution designed to last just a few years and will only affect a small number of students who move into our school division in the near future. For the 2010-2011 school year, we expect that the total number of students affected by this policy will be 81, with 80 of them at Tucker. For the following year, we are predicting that an additional 100 students will be affected, again most of them at Tucker. When we go out three years and beyond, more students are affected, but not more than 2.5 to 3% of the total elementary schools’ student enrollment. In the following years, this approach will mainly affect schools in the west end of our city although it could affect others.
I want to stress:
- This will not affect students who are currently enrolled or their siblings
- This will only affect new students enrolling in ACPS
- We will keep families together
- ACPS transportation will be provided
- We will work to make sure realtors and community groups are aware
- We will make a special effort to reach out to specific groups of parents who often don’t register their children until the first day of school
It is also important to note:
- This is currently just a proposal
- If the School Board approves this policy recommendation (prior to adopting the budget in February) regulations will be developed to ensure the process is identical for every school and is applied consistently
- The School Board Policy Committee will discuss this at its meeting on Saturday, Jan. 30, at 2:30 p.m. in the Beatley Library
One final note: we have looked at redistricting our elementary schools as an option. That approach does not work as the enrollment patterns would require that we shift a specific grade level at a school to address our limited space needs. As many of you know, ACPS and other school divisions around us have used redistricting as a short term solution to shifting enrollment patterns. This approach here in ACPS and other school divisions disrupted neighborhoods, schools, and families… and would do so again to a level that is not necessary for a solution which has not been effective. The Modified Open Enrollment Policy provides a targeted approach which will result in few families being moved to other schools and will create consistently low class sizes across the school division.
We will also continue the practice of allowing families to request administrative transfers under existing practices.
Modified Open Enrollment is a conservative, cost-effective, flexible solution to accommodate our growing number of students without sacrificing small class sizes and higher student achievement. I welcome your thoughts.
Why not see if people who are districted in a certain school wish to move elsewhere–meaning perhaps people would prefer not to send their child to the neighborhood school to which they are slated–I’ve gotten mixed answers about options in that regard. With Tucker being modified calendar–maybe create another modified calendar elementary school that those who would otherwise attend Tucker could have as an option? We bought our current house 9 years ago–a full 4 years before we even had our first child because of the districted elementary school. Obviously this was a gamble, but our son will be in kindergarden this fall and I will be mighty upset if he then has to go elsewhere. I know it’s not popular, but what about school vouchers as a way to address something in the short term until schools can be built (I’m sure 3+ years away).
Dr. Sherman,
I support the concept of modified open enrollment as long as all schools within Alexandria are open to the families who are asked to choose an alternative school. Using your example of Tucker, I mean that a family on the West End should not have to limit it’s alternative school choice to only West End schools.
If a family is asked to choose a school other than Tucker, that family may also desire another school that offers the modified calendar. The only other school is Mt. Vernon, which is not on the West End.
My two children attend Tucker and love the school. My wife and I find the teachers and staff to be very professional and focused. I would be remiss in not mentioning how dedicated and wonderful Ms. Scott and her team are, and I ask that you continue to support them to the greatest extent possible.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond.
Thank you for the informative post–certainly a lot of challenges ahead for ACPS. When purchasing a home, school district was my number one priority, and I am delighted to have 2 kindergarteners at Sam Tucker. It is not only a good school, but the modified (year round) calendar works very well for our family with 2 working parents. I appreciate the need for a solution to the enrollment problems, but what about my fellow neighbors? Many sacrificed to purchase homes in the Sam Tucker neighborhood, so they also could take advantage of the modified calendar. I know of parents with a rising kindergartner, who are making child care arrangements right now with the understanding that they will be at Tucker. If Modified Open Enrollment is approved, what recourse do these parents have? If being at Tucker is a priority, should they be first in line when kindergarten registration begins for 2010-11 school year? Thanks again for this post and the entire blog.
I’m glad you blogged on this plan, Dr. Sherman. IMHO, there has been an alarming lack of clear, transparent information on modified open enrollment. Parents at Charles Barrett are trying to piece together how it would impact our school and the ACPS website has been of little help.
As I understand it, Charles Barrett will become an “overflow” school under modified open enrollment (along with Patrick Henry and James Polk). Our overall school size could increase by 33% with the addition of five modular classrooms which will be in place by September 2011.
That information appears to be at odds with your statement that “this approach will mainly affect schools in the west end of our city although it could affect others.” Can you please clarify?
Also, if there is information on the ACPS website (besides budget charts and small-print tables that mean little to lay persons) that would provide additional information to parents, please point me to it. Thank you.
1. “One approach I have asked the School Board to consider is Modified Open Enrollment.”
What are the other approaches? It seems you are asking the school board (and the community) to consider this one without laying out alternatives. Is that a misperception?
2. For you to overlook or ignore the potential impact on the overflow schools, particularly at the point in your scenario that you cease giving specific estimates on volume, is disingenuous as best and disheartening: if in fact this plan does not include analysis of those effects, please take time to study them now before proceding. If that analysis is complete, please share with the community.
For those in the crosshairs, this is like watching a building with insufficient access go up next to a nature preserve.
These are all great questions. Please keep them coming. Since this topic has generated a good discussion, Dr. Sherman will continue it next week. He’ll include answers to your questions in Monday’s blog entry.
Thanks,
Amy Carlini
ACPS Executive Director of Communications
My daughter is a kindergarten student at Charles Barrett and given the size of the incoming class, they have to have 3 separate K classes of over 20 students each.
I cannot imagine the impact of adding 33% more students into this small campus, and the strain on the resources that will occur. My child already has to eat lunch at 10:45 in the morning.
While it may be “easier” to chose a handful of schools to accept the overflow from a managerial standpoint, the shell shock at the impacted schools will be tangible and will radically alter everything from transportation logistics to community cohesion.
I would like to understand more about why the three schools were selected, and why this approach could not be extended beyond three schools in order to mitigate the impact. It’s much more palatable on many fronts for parents to know that our school AND many other schools with have a moderate enrollment increase than to know that my school is having to deal with a huge increase that is disproportionate to our school size and district.
Like others who have posted, I moved into my neighborhood so that my kids could attend Charles Barrett, and while I understand that it’s a public school that’s affected by population, it’s simply puts too great a burden on students, staff, resources, budgets and much more to have an increase a third in the course of a single school year.
There simply HAVE to be more equitable ways to accommodate these students throughout the…
Thank you Dr. Sherman for your blog. However, as a Charles Barret parent, I am still not clear about the Modified Open Enrollment plan and would appreciate the opportunity for more discussion before such a drastic change occurs in our community school. The proposed plan seems to be a short-term fix, not a long-term solution to overcrowding.
You say the Modified Open Enrollment will “only affect a small # of students who move into our school division …”. I disagree, this plan will certainly affect ALL of the present students in the proposed overflow schools. You say this plans does not sacrifice class size or student achievement. It certainly will affect the class size and student achievement at the overflow schools. What will happen to our AYP? What will happen to the school spirit and school community as our school grows by possibly 33% with a transient population who doesn’t really want to be there? This plan may have lower costs for the facilities and personnel, but it will have HUGE costs for our students.
I understand there are difficulties with the restricted budget, but there must be a way to spread the pain more evenly – without dumping it all on just 3 schools. Let’s keep talking and hopefully come up with a new plan.
Dear Dr. Sherman:
As a Charles Barrett parent, I do appreciate your recent blog on Modified Open Enrollment, as it seems to be the first official word on this policy proposal to come from ACPS. However, as others have commented, I find the information therein to be unclear and incomplete.
You state, “This will not affect students who are currently enrolled or their siblings.” How is it possible that an increase of 33% at a school the size of Charles Barrett will not affect the quality of education for currently enrolled students, will not put a strain on the facility and the staff, will not affect the diversity of Barrett and other schools, will not affect the sense of community in a community school as 33% of the students will be transient, will not worsen a traffic situation that is already nearly unmanageable?
The MOE policy proposal seems to unfairly impact the schools you have designated as “overflow” schools (actually, you don’t mention them by name; I obtained that information elsewhere) and the overflow populations. It is well-known that those students who enroll at the last minute (and thus would be redirected using the MOE model) are the students with the greatest needs. Do you think that by conferring “temporary” status upon this population they will be well served? Do you think it is fair to ask Barrett to bear the burden of accommodating a growing population? Is it not possible, as other commenters have suggested, to share the burden more fairly?
(1) So we can be fully informed of the rationale behind the proposed decision, could all documents and internal assessments that were made with respect to proposing this policy be made available to the public? Would request that this include not only data and information behind memorandum for work sessions, but all information you or your staff relied on in making proposal to school board.
(2) We are confused by both the use of the site matrix (11/03/09 School Board Work Session memorandum, p 17) and what evaluations were done to support the scoring assessment. Can you please specify who scored each facility and the data that supports each scoring assessment (e.g., how is “public access” defined; for transportation load, was actual data used at each school collected at dropoff times?)
(3) On site matrix referenced above, what is the relevance of school replacement within 20 years — this would seem imply that modular units will be used for this period of time; otherwise, criteria would be irrelevant. Your statement says this policy is to “last just a few years.”
(4) On matrix, why were all considerations judged to be equivalent values (plus one/minus one). Is there opportunity to submit additional criteria or values or suggest other items that should be weighed in this decision?
(5) Can you explain how guiding principles (pg 3; 11/3/09 memorandum) were used? Did they affect any scoring decisions, and if so, how?
I’d like to know how thulis is going to work layered on top of the already existant opt outs for focus schools, schools not making AYP, and , as promised but sneakily changed by ACPs administration, the right to choose another school than a modified calendar school? (Please see my 2004 statement to the board.). Will the MOE schools get additional specialists, like math& reading specialists, TAG and arts, and especially guidance counsellor and psychologist to deal with these poor displaced kids. What about an assistant priciple. Modular classrooms aren’t an answr – there is so much more needed as a school grows. Also, MVCS has the capacity for 700 but because it has a modified calendar and, depsite this, still isn’t meeting NCLB, is this why this very large school isn’t being used?
I’m another parent concerned about Modified Open Enrollment, including the lack of advance public notice & comment before this concept was placed on the fasttrack. I echo many of the thoughtful comments already posted.
In addition, I’m struck by the juxtaposition of the blog post announcing the MOE proposal w/ the immediately preceeding post extolling the many benefits of community schools. I wonder how Superintendent Sherman reconciles the apparent inconsistencies between these two posts, penned just a week apart.
Rather than creating just a few repositories for displaced students, I expect it would be better to look first to adjacent schools that may have room at the appropriate grade level. Beyond that, efforts could be made generally to place students in other classrooms in the city that are under capacity before directing sizable, and likely transient, student populations to just a few schools. I see no evidence that the impact of such an approach has been considered in any respect other than the physical space required to accommodate more students.
I certainly understand that, for purposes of adding modular classrooms, it is more efficient to congregate these resources at fewer locations. But is this step even necessary? It seems far better to take an incremental approach first, maximizing use of existing capacity before spending significant sums to expand dramatically, and with undetermined consequences, the student bodies of successful community…