More Seats for Students

History of Tuckahoe Capacity and APS Actions

Tuckahoe’s Physical Structure

• Constructed in 1953: 16 classrooms, library, multipurpose room, several smaller admin rooms.

• 1971: Addition of 9 classrooms, a music room, an open media center, and a gym.

• 1983: Reed Elementary School was closed due to declining enrollment, students reassigned to Tuckahoe.

• 1999-2000: School Renovation to Upgrade the Physical Plant, resulting in a School Supporting 499 Students (Now School Defined Capacity At 521 Students)

Tuckahoe Enrollment Growth

APS Elementary Enrollment

Changes to Tuckahoe Campus

• 6 Relocatables located behind the school with the Potential for Additional Relocatables to Accommodate Projected Enrollment Increases

• Additional Classroom Space Created from Rooms Formerly Dedicated to Programs (i.e., Special Education pull-out, Computer labs)

Challenges Resulting from Current Capacity

• Building and Maintaining Strong and Personal Connections Among Students, Parents and Staff

• Foregoing FLES Program • Diminishing Computer Lab Space• Sharing Space for Integral Programs (Music, Arts,

Special Education Pull-Out)• Custodial Issues• Diminishing Play Space

Tuckahoe Projected Enrollment

APS Projected Elementary Enrollment

APS Efforts to Address Projected Student Enrollment Increases

• 2004 Boundary Process– Created Barrett cluster– Revised transfer admissions policy to 95% capacity– Moved some planning units from Taylor and a Montessori class from

McKinley– No planning units moved from Tuckahoe

• 2007-2008 – Elementary Crowding and Capacity Committee (ECCC)– Moved one Tuckahoe planning unit to Glebe– Moved one Tuckahoe planning unit to Nottingham– Moved McKinley Montessori class to Campbell– Moved Interlude from Nottingham to Oakridge– Moved MIPA from Barrett to Abingdon– Barcroft transfers to Randolph instead of Barrett

More Seats for Students

Highlights from Oct. 5 APS Presentation

Defining the CapacityShortage

• 2011 enrollment: 22,245 students– 83 relocatable classrooms (28 added this year)– 50% of our schools now have students in relocatables

• Projected growth at 4% per year through 2016• Resulting system-wide shortages in capacity

2013: 834 seats2016: 3,387 seats

• Cannot resolve crowding within existing facilities

Quantifying the Shortage• Elementary School shortages– 2013: 1,084 seats (approx 46 classrooms)– 2016: 1,608 seats (approx 69 classrooms)

• Middle School shortages– 2016: 921 seats (approx 38 classrooms)

• High School shortages– 2013: 105 seats (approx 4 classrooms)– 2016: 857 seats (approx 36 classrooms)

• Total additional classrooms needed in 2016: – 143 classrooms

Progressive Planning Model

• Stepwise approach to developing capacity– 4 phases (2010 thru 2016 and beyond)

• Some solutions immediate• Other solutions require longer planning

horizon

APS strategies for increasingcapacity and balancing utilization

1. Move programs from crowded to underutilized schools when possible

2. Increase class size3. Increase utilization of secondary schedule (6/7

model)4. Convert computer labs and other internal

spaces (10 for 2011)5. Add relocatables (28 classrooms for 2011)6. Increase enrollment at countywide schools7. Construction

Results of APS capacitystrategies

• Since 2005, APS has added 2,531 seats– 929 elementary schools– 684 middle schools– 918 high schools

• Does not include relocatable seats• More seats are needed

Convergence of Two Processes

• Capital Improvement Process• Capacity Planning• Capacity Planning process will result in CIP

projects and programmatic strategies for addressing capacity concerns

Capacity Planning Process

Milestones & Outcomes•Criteria Development June –July 2011– Identify criteria for evaluating capacity planning

solutions•Develop Solutions Catalog May - Sept 2011– Collect potential capacity planning options and

develop a catalogue of potential solutions• Potential solutions include summary of PTA responses, staff

options etc.• Refine the master list of potential options with FAC/PCS

subcommittee, senior staff, evaluation committee (9/15)

Capacity Planning Process(cont’d)

Milestones & Outcomes•Data Collection and Analysis Fall 2011– Conduct investigations, analysis and feasibility studies

of the prioritized solutions•Rank Capacity Planning Solutions Late Fall-Winter 2011– Leverage a collaborative process to rank solutions for

inclusion in the Capital Improvement Plan– Review capacity generation and funding scenarios

•Superintendent presents CIP to the Board May 2012

APS Site Evaluation Process• Capacity Building Solutions: CCPTA Survey of all schools• Evaluation Committee, including:

– Facilities Advisory Council subcommittee on projections/capacity

– 8 community members– APS senior staff representing all departments– CCPTA representation

• Evaluation Committee determined which APS sites to pursue further as part of CIP development

• Two critical questions:– Is it feasible to build on this site?– Which sites are recommended and why?

Evaluation Criteria

• Open Space• Buildability Concerns– Parking– Slope– Environmental issues

• Cost (based on size of additions)

Evaluation Limitations

• APS cannot plan/build/fund expansions on 30 sites simultaneously

• Building above an existing building– Requires that all students be out for construction

• Building where relocatables are located– Requires that all students be moved prior to start

of construction• APS does not assume that we can build on or

use adjacent County property

Sites Recommended for Further Study

• Abingdon• Arlington Traditional• Ashlawn• Carlin Springs• Drew• Glebe• Hoffman-Boston• Jamestown

• McKinley• Nottingham• Oakridge• Taylor• Jefferson• Kenmore• Williamsburg• Reed

Next Steps

• November 10th Town Hall Meeting– Special Guest– Todd McCracken Will Provide

Update on APS Planning Process and Answer Questions/Concerns Regarding the Planning Process

• Tuckahoe Input To Requests from APS Planning Process

• Advocacy– Staying Informed and be Willing to Voice Tuckahoe Challenges