We began a good discussion last week on Modified Open Enrollment so I’ll keep it going this week and address some of your comments. Most of them fall into one of two categories: alternatives and overflow schools.
Alternatives
Some of our schools are already over-capacity and others will be over-capacity in the next few years. One way to tackle this challenge is to build new schools, which is what we are proposing in the 2011-2016 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Another strategy is to add classrooms (LEED-certified modular units) to schools where there is space on the property. This is also included in the CIP. One challenge, however, is that not all schools can accommodate classroom additions. Tucker, for example, is tightly bounded by City park land so we are unable to add on to the building. Modified Open Enrollment is a short-term option that allows us to redirect a relatively small number of students (2.5% to 3% of the total elementary student enrollment) to schools with space.
An alternative option is redistricting, although we would need to do it all over again when we open new schools. Redistricting is extremely disruptive to neighborhoods, schools and families, and it is a much more drastic solution than we need at this point. 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.
Through the lottery and administrative transfers, we already offer families the option to enroll their children in schools outside their attendance zones. We will encourage new west end families in the Tucker attendance zone to enroll in west ends schools because neighborhood schools are so important, but we’ll work with each family on an individual basis to find the best fit where there is space available.
Overflow Schools
Our City is growing, our enrollment is growing, and all of us will be affected. Thank you to those who corrected me when I said this will mostly only affect Tucker families. Our schools with space, and which are closest to the crowded schools, will absorb those students who are redirected and their enrollments will increase as a result. Class sizes, however, will not exceed the class size cap. We also want to limit the total number of students at any one school. Many of our elementary schools are at or above 700 students. A proposed policy has not yet been written, but it will include an overall enrollment cap in addition to a class size cap. When a school exceeds the total enrollment capacity, it will no longer be considered a school with space, even if there is space in individual classrooms.
Many comments in this category came from Charles Barrett parents who appreciate their small school and want to keep it small. This feeling is understandable, but I ask that we all consider the big picture. Our school division as a whole must find a short-term way to absorb additional students moving into our City without raising class sizes.
• We have a limited number of schools with space in classrooms.
• We have a limited number of schools that have space on the property to add classrooms.
• No Child Left Behind regulations limit the schools that can be used for overflow.
• And we want to keep families as close to their neighborhood schools as possible.
Given these parameters, Modified Open Enrollment is a conservative, short-term solution; however, I continue to welcome other suggestions.
In a school division that is growing as quickly as we are (a 13% increase in enrollment over the past three years), the small schools that we have enjoyed will also grow until we build additional schools.
Again, I want to emphasize that Modified Open Enrollment is a proposal that has not yet been approved by the School Board. The School Board’s policy committee will discuss this at an upcoming meeting in the Beatley Library. Please note – the meeting has been changed from Jan. 30 to Feb. 4. 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.
I appreciate your further justification of the proposal, but do not believe you answered any of the specific questions that I submitted previously. Can you tell me where I can find the information on my own? Or can you give me any response at all to my questions concerning the methodology and its supporting data? If my questions are unreasonable or overly burdensome in any respect, please let me know why this is so.
I wanted to clarify that Mount Vernon Community School staff and families were approached in 2007 about welcoming students from outside our school attendance zone because of overcrowding. We all agreed that if a family wanted to “opt in” to the school for the modified school calendar, we would welcome them. Although our school is quite large by elementary school standards, the student population grew by about 100 students in the past year alone. While there are guidelines on when a school has enough students to add an assistant principal or other staff positions, programs are not always funded per pupil. For this reason, we have had to become creative as a school community to fund intersession classes at a flat rate since 2006, while continuing to meet the needs of more students (e.g., writing grants, parents volunteering to co-teach without pay). MVCS is currently serving more than 650 students, and also houses City Head Start classes, but we assured the Superintendent at a recent PTA meeting, we want to be part of the solution – not the problem – of overcrowding.
However, because MVCS met only 10 of the 14 benchmarks for the Math portion of the Virginia Standards of Learning in 2009 (students met all English/reading AYP benchmarks), it is my understanding that the school division cannot recommend our school to students opting out of their home under AYP choice options. Of course, we are working hard to improve teaching/learning ALWAYS … not just for AYP…
As a Barrett parent I appreciate our close-knit community school. However, stating that we want to “keep our school small” oversimplifies our concerns. Since FY 06-07 we have seen a 29% increase in student population — one of the highest in the district. When looking at an enrollment grid we appear small. However, we are experiencing the growth pains shared by all of our
schools — albeit in a smaller facility. When designing this plan please consider how another large influx of students — in a more condensed time period — will impact our resources. The transitory nature of our “open
enrollment” students is another area of concern. How will we best serve these students and their families who will be with us for an undetermined period of time? Traffic safety is a huge issue. I invite you to visit our
school between 7:30 and 8:00 am on any school day to witness the hazardous pedestrian conditions. We have begged the City for a traffic solution only to receive a yellow caution sign for our crosswalk, that has since been run over by a truck. Adding more students will only exacerbate an already dangerous situation. We realize this policy is driven by the need to help all of our
students. And we want to be part of the solution. However, we have very valid concerns beyond remaining “small” and thus far, we haven’t received enough information to address them. We welcome the chance for more discussion and collaboration. Thank you.
Please don’t misunderstand or misrepresent the concerns of Charles Barrett parents. We are not simply asking to stay small no matter the impact on the rest of the school district. First, many parents just learned of the potential changes last week. Information was sketchy and hidden deep in charts and matrixes. At first it appeared that our school was going to increase by a 1/3 or 100 “revolving door” students — kids who would be able to transfer back to their home school as soon as a spot became available.
That presented a host of legitimate concerns — lack of commitment to our community, an increase in special needs, a strain on our ability to make AYP, etc. We see that some of the growth is predicted to come from within our school boundaries. Either way it comes, we are concerned about how we are positioned to handle the growth.
Your matrix showed a positive rating for traffic around Barrett. That couldn’t be further from the truth. We have been working with the city for 5+ years on improving traffic – they rate us as one of the worst intersections in the city. Other concerns include the fact that we are targeted to lose some of our ELL and reading specialist support. How does that correspond to this projected growth?
We are not NIMBY-minded parents unconcerned about the rest of ACPS. And, we do look forward to meeting with you on Wed. to talk about how our growing school will be able to meet its needs with or without MOE transfers.
As a Charles Barrett parent I too appreciate the strong sense of community at our school. And I can tell you that since our daughter entered kindergarten at Barrett in the fall of 2005 the sense of community has grown in strength as our school has grown in size.
With all due respect, Dr. Sherman, I take offense at your portrayal of Charles Barrett parents as people whose only concern is that Barrett remain small at the expense of the school system. I believe it was unfair of you to label us this way and to ignore the greater concerns that Charles Barrett parents have (and which were addressed in some comments).
Our concerns are about the transient nature of the overflow population, the strains such growth will put on the school’s staff and resources, how Barrett’s ability to meet standards will be affected, how the growth will worsen our traffic situation, how the MOE transfer families and students will be affected.
The Barrett Community is made up of dedicated, caring parents who have spent countless hours over the years supporting the school — its teachers and the students — in an effort to make the school and the system stronger. To say that we are not looking at the big picture is misrepresenting our concerns.
The additional information provided in this blog post is helpful in addressing some of the concerns raised last week. Perhaps the alarm over several aspects of the plan could have been tempered had more detailed information been provided when the MOE plan was first revealed.
However, the specific points made immediately above by Ms. Roda and Ms. Carey are well taken with respect to the significant concerns that remain. In particular, it is incorrect to attribute the apprehension from Barrett Elem. community members to a desire simply to keep our school “small.” Size itself is not the problem. The issue is potentially disproportionate impact from substantial numbers of incoming, possibly temporary students, coupled with an apparent absence of corollary resources to meet the needs of the expanded school population.
Moreover, it appears that some of the assumptions made in drafting the MOE plan (e.g., with respect to the traffic situation at Barrett) are not firmly rooted in reality. It may be appropriate for the ACPS to undertake a reassessment in these areas based on input from the community.
I look forward to having these and other concerns addressed at tonight’s meeting at Barrett.