Transcript WS CapacityInfov12

Work Session:
Capacity Update
Arlington Public Schools
March 10, 2010
1
What we hope to accomplish:
• Common Language around Capacity
• Knowledge of the Issues and Process
• Reaffirmation of APS Methodologies
• Impact of Increasing Maximum Class Size
• Impact of Short-Term Solutions and
Moving Ahead with Long-Term Options
2
Operational Definitions:
APS Class Size and Capacity
Enduring Understanding:
Common Language around Capacity
3
Virginia Standards of Quality (SOQ)
– Class Size
§ 22.1-253.13:2. Standard 2. Instructional, administrative, and support
personnel: “…assign licensed instructional personnel in a manner that
produces divisionwide ratios of students in average daily membership to
full-time equivalent teaching positions, excluding special education
teachers, principals, assistant principals, counselors, and librarians…”
Grade
SOQ
Ratio
Maximum
K
24:1
29
1-3
24:1
30
4-6
25:1
35
6-12 (English only)
24:1
n/a
Schoolwide (Middle and High)
21:1
n/a
4
Standards of Quality (SOQs)
Educational standards that are a part of the Code
of Virginia. They can only be changed by acts
of the General Assembly approved by the
Governor.
5
APS Operational Definitions
Planning Factors (PF)
Approved formulas in which staffing, materials,
and supplies are allocated to schools.
Recommended Maximum Class Size (RM)
An approved recommended number that a class
size should be within and not greater than.
6
APS Operational Definitions
Capacity Planning Factor (CPF) – Elementary
A constant that is multiplied times the number of
K-5 classrooms in a building to determine K-5
capacity (currently: 22.33 students)
7
APS Operational Definitions
Capacity Planning Factor (CPF) – Secondary
Capacity for secondary schools vary by room
type, (e.g. self-contained SpEd rooms have a
capacity of 10, core classes have a 20 student
capacity, and vocal music is 35). All capacitybearing rooms are also then multiplied by the 5/7
planning factor to determine the total building
capacity.
8
APS Operational Definitions
Increase Maximum Class Size by One
Increase the planning factor and recommended
maximum by one at each grade level; may or
may not change number of students in an
individual class depending on grade, school,
school year
9
FY 2010 Elementary Classroom
Teacher Planning Factor Formula
A
FORMULA
B
# of students divided by
planning factor
# of students divided by
recommended maximum class
size
Kindergarten
# of students divided by 22
# of students divided by 23
Grade 1
# of students divided by 19
# of students divided by 23
Grade 2
# of students divided by 21
# of students divided by 25
Grade 3
# of students divided by 21
# of students divided by 25
Grade 4
# of students divided by 23
# of students divided by 27
Grade 5
# of students divided by 23
# of students divided by 27
10
FY 2010 Middle School Classroom
Teacher Planning Factor
1. 1.0 classroom teacher for every 22.4 general
education student (Number of general education
students divided by 22.4)
2. Adjustment to extrapolate 5 teaching periods to 7
student periods (Results from above divided by 5/7
3. Added factor for mainstreaming special education
students
– Results from above + number of special
education students ÷ 22.4 ÷ 5 (teaching
periods) x 1 (student period)
4. Each middle school also receives a 1.0 reading
teacher for each Grade 6 middle school team
11
FY 2010 High School Classroom
Teacher Planning Factor
1. 1.0 classroom teacher for every 23.4 general education student
(Number of general education students divided by 23.4)
2. Adjustment to extrapolate 5 teaching periods to 7 student periods
(Results from #2 ÷ 5/7)
3. Added factor for mainstreaming special education students
– Results from above + number of special education students
23.4 ÷ 5 (teaching periods) x 1 (student period)
4. Staffing is reduced at each high school to partially offset students
taking courses at the Career Center
5. Each high school also receives SOL Core Supplement teachers
that is allocated based on students and Free/Reduced Lunch
percentage
12
Review:
Where We Are
Enduring Understanding:
Knowledge of the Issues and Process
13
Progressive Planning Model – Timing
Phase I – Immediate
FY 2010
Plan
Phase II – Short-Term
Approximately 1-3 Years (may need
to be accelerated)
Plan
Phase III – Mid-Term
Approximately 4-6 Years (may need
to be accelerated)
Plan
2010
Phase IV – Long-Term
Approximately 6+ Years (may need
to be accelerated)
2016
14
Progressive Planning Model Phase I
Consider for Immediate Action for September 2010
Elementary
Secondary
Convert computer labs and/or other
available space to classrooms (e.g., convert
six existing computer labs to classrooms)*
Implement 6/7 scheduling model
Increase class size by one based on
recommended maximum class size*
Increase class size by one based on
recommended maximum class size *
Add relocatable classrooms*
Consider moving individual preK classes
* Options dependent on and to be addressed as part of the FY 2011 budget process
Progressive Planning Model Phase II
Consider in the Short-Term (may need to be accelerated)
Elementary
Secondary
Add relocatable classrooms
Add relocatable classrooms
Convert computer labs and/or other
available space to classrooms
Increase recommended maximum class size
by an additional one student
Increase recommended maximum class size
by an additional one student
15
Progressive Planning Model Phase III
Consider in the Mid-Term (may need to be accelerated)
Elementary
Secondary
Consolidate program by creating centers
(e.g., preK)
Implement a staggered school day with
two-bell schedules at high schools
Utilize other county building space
Team options
Consider flexible school day at high school
Countywide options
Countywide options
Consider use of Career Center
Progressive Planning Model Phase IV
Consider in the Long-Term (may need to be accelerated)
Elementary
Develop Wilson site
Secondary
Redistrict secondary schools
Redistrict elementary schools
16
PreK-12 Enrollment
Year
Enrollment
Projection
(PreK-12)
Actual
(PreK-12)
Difference
% of
Projection
2005
18,386
18,411
+25
100.2%
2006
18,252
18,451
+199
101.1%
2007
18,533
18,684
+151
100.8%
2008
19,094
19,534
+440
102.3%
2009
20,130
20,233
+103
100.5%
17
School Projections
Schools Under
Projection (3%+)
Campbell
Claremont
Henry
Jamestown
Long Branch
Kenmore
Langston
Schools on Projection
(within 2%)
Elementary
Abingdon
ATS
Ashlawn
Barrett
Drew
Hoffman-Boston
Key
Nottingham
Oakridge
Middle
Gunston
Jefferson
Swanson
Williamsburg
High
Wakefield
Yorktown
HB Woodlawn
Schools Over
Projection (3%+)
Barcroft
Carlin Springs
Glebe
McKinley
Randolph
Science Focus
Taylor
Tuckahoe
HB Woodlawn
Arlington Mill
Washington-Lee
18
Relocatables as of March 2010
School
Barrett
McKinley
Nottingham
Tuckahoe
Williamsburg
HB Woodlawn/Stratford
Barcroft
Jefferson
Yorktown
Number
1
Use
Capacity
2
3
6
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
13
2
11
1
Capacity
Capacity
Program
Program
9
Construction
19
APS and MGT
Enduring Understanding:
Reaffirmation of APS Methodologies
20
Enrollment Projections: MGT & APS
Year
APS
Projection
MGT
Difference
2010 (Spr 10)
21087
21751
-664
2011
21657
22285
-628
2012
22358
22740
-382
2013
23074
22973
101
2014
22838
23321
-483
2015
24615
23434
1181
21
Enrollment Projections: MGT & APS
•
Differences in projection numbers due to variation
in methodologies
– APS selects a single methodology
– MGT uses a combination methodology
•
APS staff and MGT are confident in APS’
methodology
– Historically accurate within 2% systemwide
– Updated twice yearly (Fall, using September
30 enrollment, and Spring, using January 31
enrollment)
22
Capacity Numbers: MGT & APS
23
Capacity Numbers: MGT & APS
Differences in capacity numbers due to four
reasons:
1. Variation in formula (same number of rooms)
2. Current use vs. potential use
3. Clarity of detail due to 30,000 foot view from
MGT
4. Adjustments to room uses not yet captured by APS
(last capacity update Aug 09)
24
Staff Planning Factors and
Capacity Planning Factor
APS 3rd Grade
APS 2nd Grade
APS
APS 1st GradeK
20
21
22
23
Capacity Planning Factor
22.33 per K-5 Classroom
19
24
25
26
27
28
29
State maximum – 1-3
State maximum - K
APS 4th Grade
State maximum – 4-5
APS 5th Grade
30
31
32
33
34
35
25
Capacity Numbers: MGT & APS
Variation in formula – Elementary Schools
MGT Model
APS Model
Type of
Classroom
Number
of
Classes
Capacity/
Planning
Factor
Total
Type of
Classroom
Number
of
Classes
Capacity/
Planning
Factor
Total
K
5
22
110
K-5
24
22.33
536
1
4
19
76
2
8
16
2
5
21
105
PreK
SpEd
VPI
3
3
21
63
1
16
16
4
4
23
92
Montessor
i
1
22
22
5
3
23
69
TOTAL
28
PreK SpEd
2
8
16
VPI
1
16
16
Montessori
1
22
22
TOTAL
28
569
590
Same school shows difference of
21 students. APS model has
advantage for long-term planning.
26
Capacity Numbers: MGT & APS
Variation in formula – Secondary Schools
MGT Model
APS Model
Type
Number of
Seats per
Room
Capacity
Planning
Factor
Type
Number of
Seats per
Room
Capacity
Planning
Factor
Grades
6-8
20
.71
Grades
6-8
20
.71
Grades
9-12
20
.71
Grades
9-12
20
.71
HILT/
HILTEX
20
.71
HILT/
HILTEX
20
.71
Drama
20
.71
Drama
24
.71
SpEd
10
.71
SpEd
10
.71
H & PE
30
.71
H & PE
24
.71
Music
30
.71
Music
35
.71
27
Elementary Capacity Examples
Oakridge
•
•
5 classroom difference; 129 student difference APS/MGT
Capacity utilization: 101% vs. 132%
Abindgon
•
•
4 classroom difference; 114 student difference APS/MGT
Capacity utilization: 77% vs. 96%
Randolph
•
•
2 classroom difference; 56 student difference APS/MGT
Capacity utilization: 88% vs. 78%
Claremont
•
•
1 classroom difference, 56 student difference APS/MGT
Capacity utilization: 88% vs. 98%
Hoffman-Boston
•
•
4 classroom difference; 59 student difference APS/MGT
Capacity utilization: 64% vs. 70%
28
Capacity Planning Factors
Comparison
Type of Classroom
APS
MGT
Fairfax
Prince
William
Mont. MD
K
22.33
22
25
22
22
1
22.33
19
25
25
23
2
22.33
21
25
25
23
3
22.33
21
28
25
23
4
22.33
23
28
25
23
5
22.33
23
28
25
23
PreK SpEd
8
8
--
--
--
VPI
16
16
--
--
--
Montessori
22
22
--
--
--
Head Start/Pre K
--
--
--
--
20
Special Education
--
--
10
--
--
29
Elementary Capacity Example
Type of
Classroom
Number
of
Classes
Capacity/
Planning
Factor
Total
Regular (K-5)
24
23.33
536
PreK Special Ed
2
8
16
VPI
1
16
16
Montessori
1
23
23
TOTAL
28
Increase of 25 seats
591
30
Secondary Core Capacity Example
Program
Rooms
Available
Room
Capacity
Capacity
Planning
Factor
Language Arts
13
21
0.86
235
Mathematics
14
21
0.86
253
Social Studies
17
21
0.86
307
Science
16
21
0.86
289
Subtotal
60
Capacity
1084
Increase of 60 seats (room capacity) and 172 seats 6/7 model, total increase of
232 seats.
31
Affirming APS Numbers
•
•
•
•
•
Reliability – over the years APS numbers have
reflected the reality in the schools
Validity – MGT analyzed APS numbers and
formulations, found them to be valid, and
recommended their continued use
Validity – Facility Advisory Council supports
continued use of APS methodologies
Consistency with other methodologies – the
numbers are consistent, though not identical, with
calculations used locally and nationally
Consistency over time – the numbers are consistent
for APS long-range planning
32
Maximum Class Size
Increases
Enduring Understanding:
Impact of Increasing Maximum Class Size
33
Supt’s Proposed Class Size
Increases for 2010-11
Elementary
Current
(PF/Max)
Proposed
(PF/Max)
K; Montessori 3-5
22/23
23/24
1
19/23
20/24
2-3
21/25
22/26
4-5
23/27
23/27
23
24
22.33
23.33
ATS (Grades 1-3)
Capacity Planning Factor for K-5
Classroom
34
Supt’s Proposed Class Size
Increases for 2010-11
Secondary
Current
Proposed
Middle School
22.4
23.4
High School
23.4
24.4
20
21
Capacity Planning Factor for
Secondary Core Classrooms
35
Average Elementary Class Sizes
Year
K
1
2
3
4
5
2007
18.9
19.0
20.1
20.3
21.2
20.3
2008
19.7
19.4
19.9
19.9
21.9
21.1
2009
20.1
19.4
20.1
20.1
20.9
21.2
36
Elementary Class Sizes:
Three School Snapshots
School
K
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Ashlawn
22
20
21
22
20
18
20
19
18
17
20
21
18
19
20
26
25
Henry
19
20
18
18
23
21
20
18
18
17
18
19
18
14
16
14
17
17
16
Taylor
21
22
22
22
22
22
21
22
22
20
24
23
22
22
22
23
24
23
24
23
22
21
23
24
20
23
23
37
Number Secondary Core and Foreign
Language Classes at 27 or More
Year
Middle
School
Total Number of MS
Core and Foreign
Language Classes
High
School
Total HS Core and
Foreign Language
Classes
20072008
24
664
10
684
20082009
19
694
15
703
20092010
15
716
9
621
38
Elementary Staffing Comparisons
SOQs
APS
Alexandria
Fairfax
Grade
Prince
William
Mont., MD
Staffing
Ratio
Max.
Staffing
Ratio
Max.
Staffing
Ratio
Max.
Staffing
Ratio
Max.
Staffing
Ratio
Max.
Staffing
Ratio
Max.
K
24:1
29
22:1
23 20:1
23
26:1
28
22:1
28
25:1
25
1
24:1
30
19:1
23 20:1
23
26:1
30
22:1
29
26:1
26
2
24:1
30
21:1
25 20:1
23
26:1
30
22:1
29
26:1
26
3
24:1
30
21:1
25 21:1
25
26:1
30
22:1
29
26:1
26
4
25:1
35
23:1
27 21:1
25
26:1
30
22:1
29
28:1
28
5
25:1
35
23:1
27 21:1
25
26:1
30
22:1
29
28:1
28
39
K-3 Initiative Class Size
School Name
Largest Permitted Individual Class
Size in the School
ARLINGTON SCIENCE FOCUS
25
GLEBE ELEM.
25
CLAREMONT IMMERSION
25
LONG BRANCH ELEM.
25
OAKRIDGE ELEM.
25
KEY ELEM.
25
DREW MODEL ELEM.
24
ABINGDON ELEM.
24
HENRY ELEM.
24
BARRETT ELEM.
24
HOFFMAN-BOSTON ELEM.
23
CAMPBELL ELEM.
23
BARCROFT ELEM.
23
RANDOLPH ELEM.
22
CARLIN SPRINGS ELEM.
21
40
Illustrative Example:
Impact of Increasing Maximum Class Size by One
Current
Example
Increase Maximum by One
Kindergarten
Teachers
Teachers
Grades
1-5
1
3.00
2
3
Difference
Kindergarten
Teachers
Teachers
Grades
1-5
Kindergarten
Teachers
Teachers
Grades
1-5
12.00
3.00
11.00
--
(1.00)
5.00
20.00
4.00
18.00
(1.00)
(2.00)
3.00
12.00
3.00
12.00
--
--
41
Illustrative Example: Impact of Increasing Class
Size by One on 2010-2011 Elementary Staffing
(K-3, using Fall Projections)
42
Illustrative Example: Impact of
Increasing Class Size by One on 20102011 Secondary Staffing
Reductions at Middle School = 9.4; High School = 11.6
43
Impact of Increasing Maximum Class
Size by One on Classrooms
44
Impact of Increasing Maximum
Class Size by One on Classrooms
45
Moving Forward
Enduring Understanding:
Impact of Short-Term Solutions and Moving
Ahead with Long-Term Options
46
Progressive Planning Model:
Elementary School Impact
47
Progressive Planning Model:
Middle School Impact
48
Progressive Planning Model:
High School Impact
49
Forecasting: Elementary
(Estimated Numbers)
Total
Number of
Seats
Increase
Maximum
Class Size
by One
Number of
New
Relocatables
# PreK
Programs to
be Moved
Computer
Labs to be
Converted
Total New
Number of
Seats
2010-11
11369
475 Seats
6
2
6
12124
2011-12
12124
475 Seats
6
2
6
12891
2012-13
12891
--
--
10 (cluster)
--
13091
Year
50
PreK Options
• Identify a set of Superintendent’s criteria for
moving PreK programs
• Consider the possibility of creating a PreK cluster
site
• Explore possible sites and costs of upgrading to
APS standards and local and state codes and
regulations
51
Location of
VPI Students
2009-2010
52
Forecasting: Secondary
(Estimated Numbers)
Total
Number of
Seats
Increase
Maximum
Class Size
by One
Implement
6/7 Model
Number of
New
Relocatables
High School
Scheduling
Options
Total New
Number of
Seats
2010-11
9447
340
1170
--
--
10957
2011-12
10957
340
--
12
--
11525
2012-13
11525
--
--
--
1000
12525
Year
53
Secondary Options
Scheduling Early/Late Courses at Washington-Lee for
2010-2011with the following planned for early
classes:
• Three Grade 12 classes (English 12, US
Government, English 12 AP)
• Three Grade 11 classes (English 11 AP, US History
AP, English 11 (IB or Regular)
54
Next Steps
• Continue implementation of Phase I
• Work with the Projections/Capacities SubCommittee of the Facilities Advisory Council
(P/CS), to monitor the progress of addressing our
capacity issues
• Research, study and plan, consistent with the cycle
of improvement model (Plan, Do, Study, Act), for
Phases II, III, and IV
• Update the School Board in April 2010 and twice
yearly thereafter on capacity and enrollment
55
Next Steps
• Specific Steps:
− Identify schools that, based on projections, appear to need space for
September 2010
− Meet with principals of impacted schools
− Review options and implementation plan with schools
− Work with P/CS on planned adjustments
− Update School Board on progress April 2010
− Collaborate with schools in implementation of options
− Monitor the 6/7 model and other possible scheduling initiatives
undertaken at the secondary level
− Report on 2010 cycle in May 2010 after FY11 Budget adoption
− Review and revise, as appropriate, relevant policies and procedures
− Confirm site options
− Initiate dialogue around cluster options
− Continue planning around Career Center options
− Establish plan to do same review for 2011 cycle during Spring/Summer
2010
− Establish plan to do same review for 2012 cycle during Spring/Summer
2010
56
School Board Direction
• Continue implementation of Progressive Planning
Model adopted in December 2010
• Continue use of APS enrollment projection and
capacity methodologies
• Consider increase maximum class size by one at
elementary and/or secondary level as part of FY11
Budget
• Examine other long-term solutions such as the
Career Center, Flexible Scheduling, PreK Center or
Clusters, and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
57
Work Session:
Capacity Update
Arlington Public Schools
March 10, 2010
58