In addition to releasing a statement today regarding the MBTA’s proposed bus changes, Newton Mayor Ruthanne Fuller also shared these thoughts regarding the Newton Public Schools latest enrollment projections. (bold added below for emphasis)
The school enrollment forecast is critical, and it’s done thoughtfully, seriously and in-depth each year.
The Enrollment Analysis Report in November and the Enrollment Planning and Class Size Report issued this week show that while we have to pay attention to a few individual schools, the news is positive.
There are 65 fewer students enrolled in the Newton Public Schools this year, ending 13 years of increases (1,482 students were added between 2004 and 2017), and the five-year enrollment projections show the numbers remaining stable.
On Tuesday, the School Department presented the five-year enrollment forecast for each school and classroom. In general, enrollment at the elementary level is projected to remain steady or to decrease slightly, but we need to pay attention to Angier which is at capacity and at Pierce where numbers appear to be ticking up.
Middle school enrollment is projected to grow and then decrease over the next five years. Oak Hill, however, is projected to see a consistent increase because of the expanded Zervas School. That’s also a school we have to keep our eye on.
High school enrollment is relatively steady for a couple of years and then starts growing in the fall of 2022. It keeps growing until 2026 and then levels out. Class sizes and the percent of classes with 25 or more students at both high schools are slightly lower than last year, and the two schools are quite similar. Balancing class sizes at the high schools will be critical when enrollments grow in a few years.
This year we also dug deeper to get a full picture of what enrollment will look like over the next 10 years. A professional demographer looked at all types of indicators, including the impact of potential new developments (Northland, Riverside, Riverdale and Chestnut Hill Square) on school enrollment. (Projects that have already been approved by the City Council, such as Austin Street and Washington Place, are included in the five-year forecast–again, our efforts to ‘dig deeper’ are focusing on yet-to-be-approved projects.)
The full report will be available in the next month or two, but the preview indicates that even if all four proposals are eventually approved by the City Council, enrollment would continue to be manageable with just a slight increase in students. Without the yet-to-be-approved developments, projections show an enrollment decline.
That’s good news for our schools, but it doesn’t mean our work is done. We need to make sure all our school buildings are in good condition and we keep our eyes on class sizes to make sure they are appropriate in all our schools and all our grades.
Northland, Riverside, Riverdale, and Chestnut Hill Square shouldn’t be the only large-scale developments that break ground in the next ten years.
Also, what’s Riverdale?
@Sean: As you know, concerns that these various projects will tip the balance on school capacity is often presented as a given in public hearings, on this blog, on list serves, and so many other places. But in fact, the data shows otherwise.
In this case the facts as presented by Mayor Fuller are , “without the yet-to-be-approved developments, projections show an enrollment decline” and “even if all four proposals are eventually approved by the City Council, enrollment would continue to be manageable with just a slight increase in students.”
P.S. Isn’t Riverdale where Archie, Betty and Veronica go to school? Are they experiencing an enrollment decline too?
Projections aren’t facts, Greg. Like all reports that make projections into the future, this one can’t predict outside factors. Look at the 2007 Comprehensive Plan – it stated that school enrollment was expected to be stable well into the future. The facts looked very different indeed. Then add to that, a major recession in 2008 that no one could or did predict, and the NPS ended up in very rough shape, especially at the elementary level. .
Using these reports to justify the developments is a major mistake and frankly, I’d give it up because no one is buying it. The real solution, as Steve Siegal pointed out just this week on this blog, is enlarging the schools as they are rebuilt to accommodate the significant enrollment increase from the past 10 years, as well as any possible future increases.
I’ve supported the developments for the most part, have spoken publicly in support of them, and will continue to, but I can’t support the denial that the schools are overcrowded. Why not just deal with the problem? When the schools are rebuilt they need to be enlarged anyway, so enlarge them to accommodate a possible influx from the developments. We have two completed enlarged schools and a third close to completion to serve as examples of what can be if we face the problem headon.
Huh, I believe a teacher just told to me to ignore the data.
How very 2017, 2018 and now 2019.
@Jane, my friend, all I am saying is that citizens across the city frequently stand up at public hearings, write on this blog and all sorts of other places, that our schools are too crowded now and that these proposed projects will essentially create enrollment Armageddon.
Often those comments come with someone insisting that a developer build a new school.
But — and this is my only point — the data says that’s not needed.
The data says we don’t need a new school, although there are plenty of other things we do need.
So yes please, let’s have a fact-based conversation about our schools’ infrastructure needs. Let’s have a fact-informed discussion about the pros and cons of any and every project and the community give backs we should require of these developers.
Let’s just not make stuff up. And saying we need a new school is making stuff up.
Greg – my pal 😉 – by the mayor’s own account, we have over 1400 more students in the schools now than we did in 2004. That’s data. Projections are’t data. People say the schools are overcrowded because the data shows that we have increased enrollment and have not yet addressed capacity in large swathes of the city. We’re getting there, and the city is planning to address the issue.
I’m saying the developments aren’t going to create Armageddon at all once we rebuild the schools to accommodate the increased enrollment of the past years and watch carefully what happens with the developments as we go through the process. But denying that that we have overcrowded schools is really not a good idea – at all.
So then we agree!
And that’s not very 2017 or 2018 but it gives me hope for 2019.
I have never before suggested a developer build a new school. Northland is different. It’s massive. It will put a tremendous burden on Newton’s school system, and the developer ought to be required to mitigate that.
I recognize there’s a difference between need and want. The School Committee doesn’t think we “need” a new school. They’ve been wrong before. But please don’t try to tell me we couldn’t use a STEM satellite school, which could take some pressure off our other schools in Newton. Or a decent alternative high school, which the city hasn’t had in decades. I’m sure there are other terrific ideas as well.
The Northland proposal represents a great opportunity for this city to get a couple of big “wants,” even if we don’t desperately “need” them. If Fuller and the City Council do their jobs well, the Northland project will actually strengthen Newton’s school system.
Greg, we all know that we can use data to tell any story we want. Data doesn’t always equal facts.
I am interested in knowing is:
1) How many households in Newton send students to each elementary school?
2) For each school, what % are they at capacity?
3) How many households will be added based upon the proposed development and based upon current districting, how many households will each school add?
These would be factual data points and we can draw inferences from there
Since Steve Siegel’s post, I’ve been curious as to what the “4” potential projects that apparently won’t have much of an impact on our schools are. So I know Riverside has a potential 663 units and Northland has 822 and Chestnut Hill Square was at the time of permitting – a potential 100+ units, does that mean this “Riverdale” will have 300 units and where exactly will this development be located?
Is there any data on the historical accuracy of past enrollment forecasts? I recall when we moved into the city with two young children in tow in 2003, we were told that projected enrollments were dropping.
Forecasts are only as good as the assumptions and models they are based on.
Let’s not make the “Silluzio” mistake of underestimating the potential growth of students in Newton’s schools. In the 80s numbers guru Vincent Silluzio (rest in peace) encouraged Newton to mothball or sell buildings in the face of declining enrollment, which he predicted would continue for some time. Thus Warren, Hyde, and Weeks became housing, and other schools were rented out before returning to the system.
We all know the outcome: by the early 90s it was clear that Silluzio was wrong, and we had to place two middle schools across the street from each other, one at the site of an elementary school that was sorely needed. Students are bused to elementary schools, undermining the institution of the neighborhood school.
My point: let’s show some skepticism about these predictions. I for one doubt that millennials, the target market for the projects, have truly forsworn having children and driving automobiles. If young people move into those projects, and many will, they may defy the prognosticators.
People will believe what they want to believe. Clearly those who are inclined to oppose new development will not believe what the school committee and its consultant say if it doesn’t support their predisposition. Which is their right. But let’s not be fooled.
Obviously the city made a grievous mistake in the 1980s in underestimating the student growth that followed when the boomers starting having kids, and the decision to sell off school buildings was wrong in hindsight. It is important that the city get it right this time.
But all indications are that demographics are changing and will continue to do so in the future. The millennials who are now of childbearing age are largely putting off marriage and, and having fewer children when they do marry in the aftermath of the recession, student loans, and stagnant wages. That means, eventually, there will be fewer students. Meanwhile, there will be more older folks and non-family households who will need alternate housing options.
It’s perfectly acceptable to ask the developers to pay their fair share of the
impact. It’s also perfectly fine to hold the elected school committee and its consultant accountable for their projections. But there is no guarantee the future will be the same as the past.
It would be interesting so see if a tax override comes along with this managed capacity.
As I see it, the residential / business tax burden can only increase the percentage paid in the residential sector.
What impact will that have on increasing senior population? Would like to live here but can’t afford the taxes?
Finally, this whole thing made me think of Trump and his art of negotiation. Let’s just aide the developers by telling them we can manage the additional capacity.
Thinking some more. Perhaps these new developments will stave off a tax override in the short term with the associated permitting fees. Perhaps the override will come shortly after!
@Jack Prior is right forecasts are only as good as the model they are based on. I for one am skeptical as my kids are living through the impacts of Avalon Needham St. the devil is in the details. Would love to see specifics on the rationale determining that these additional units will only add relatively low amounts of kids to our schools.
South is at its peak enrollment right now and expected to increase or maintain its current enrollment for the next 5 years.. Elementary enrollment is the hardest to predict. The enrollment analysis reports which only includes permitted building projects shows elementary down 200 kids 5 yrs from now.
As far as increasing capacity at existing schools which is mentioned above…that still comes st a cost both building wise and staff wise. The current system does not fund all things that it should. As Simon mentions above I heard override mentioned before the last election. As Mike Striar has mentioned negotiations should be made to make developenebts a net positive for the city.
@Claire, below is an answer to one of your questions about utilization. It is on the enrollment report:
Angier- 100%
Bowen-86%
Burr- 106%
Cabot-100%
Countryside- 95%
Franklin- 105%
Horace Mann- 120%
Lincoln Eliot – 100%
Mason Rice- 110%
Memorial Spaulding- 96%
Pierce – 87%
Underwood -93%
Ward -114%
Zervis- 79%
As a resident of Wellesley I’ve been following your threads (and others) to learn about the impact of increased housing units and enrollment. Newton mirrors all other towns in the 128 catchment area seeing a direct impact on the schools. Looking at your current utilization if I were a Newton parent I’d be praying for an enrollment drop at this point. As a town official I may not be demanding a new school at this point but I’d be extremely cautious of the message you are pushing out. I expect Wellesley to be a bit wet behind the ears on this subject since we are just starting the 40B push to get to our 10%, I would have thought Newton would be well verse in the affects by now. Wellesley’s highest utilization at this point is one school at 92% and all others are around 85%. I expect this to change in the near future.
PS: Looking at Northlands proposal for that area it is the facelift it needs but maybe not as big.
Greg – Yes! We agree. With the exception of calling projections data and using numbers of children/adolescents as the sum total of data points, we’re in total agreement. Unfortunately, classes of 21 are not created equal, with some having significantly more stressors than others.
Anyone who thinks the schools don’t need to be enlarged hasn’t been attuned to the enrollment and facilities problems that were exacerbated by overcrowded conditions in the last 15 years. Bob Jampol is absolutely right – let’s learn from our too recent mistakes of the 80’s. My 2 sons will soon have 4 sons who will enter a public school system in the blink of an eye, and most of their 30-something friends are at a similar point in their lives. We’re about to see a boomerang of the boomer boomerang, so let’s not get caught with our collective fingers in our ears and backs turned to reality as we were in the 80’s.
Newton is viewed as an attractive community to raise a family and that’s a great thing. IMHO, the anxiety about an enrollment increase relates to two mistakes of the past – selling the properties when it was obvious to most that we were going to need them in the near future, and not increasing capacity at the elementary level in the early 2000’s.
As for where to gather accurate information about overcrowded schools, I will once again point to the most cost effective, informed source that has yet to be tapped: NPS teachers and staff.
@Jane Frantz is right the people actually in the buildings have insight into the true picture. Each school is unique in how their physical facilities are set up and what they can truly handle. It is not just about classroom space. NPS may say a school is handling their enrollment just fine whereas the people on the ground may feel differently as they know on the detail level the trade offs that occur.
Interesting that Bowen is only at 86%. NPS used buffer zones to move kids out of Bowen to Mason-Rice. I remember in the conversations prior to the expanded Buffer Zones the Bowen community/administration mentioning that due to the amount of rental units in their district that their school population was very transient and fluctuated quite a bit. Thus the ability to predict their school enrollment from yr to yr was tough. At the time they were looking to have 5 first grade classes the following year because of their existing 4K classes and move ins.
I’ll wait to see the report that the city has commissioned before making comments on whether or not new schools will be needed with these new developments. I would like to make the following two points:
1. The demographer should not just look at the new students that will come from the currently proposed big developments. She/he should also look at the hundreds of new 2-family, 3-family and small apartment buildings that will come online in the next decade with the new proposed zoning changes. These go unnoticed at first, but the numbers add up.
2. The developers should pay into a proportional capital fund to pay for future schools commensurate with the projected numbers. If their development will add 100 students, and an average school has 400 students, they should be paying into a future school fund that equals 1/4 of the cost of land and building for a future new school. These new developments are free riding on the fact that we currently have excess school capacity, but what about future new developments, large and small?
Who was it who said “predictions are tough, especially about the future?”
imf: I don’t see the information you provide about facility utilization in the enrollment report (which I admittedly skimmed).
Here’s a question for all the folks here who have written, or feel, we shouldn’t trust, believe or rely on the school department’s enrollment projections:
Do you believe we should be building a new school now, just in case Newton Public Schools and Mayor Fuller are wrong?
Greg,
I think the concern is that the developer gets to “screw over” residents and just walks away. Some kind of escrow account sounds reasonable given the scale of the development…
If after 10 years, the schools are unaffected then they get the money back.
Greg, I don’t see the point of your question. My son goes to Newton North. Newton North, is technically below capacity, but if you walk around, it is still overcrowded. Being under capacity does not mean that adding students, even if you add teacher coverage, won’t affect education. My Scion XB technically holds 5 people. The enjoyment of driving someplace is a lot different one if there is one person versus five in the car. How many toilets do you have in your house? How many are being used right now? If the number of toilets is under capacity, should you do something to fix the problem?
There is another issue. If student population falls the future, we have the ability to re-optimize or reallocate buildings. If we load up with extra students now, we may forgo the opportunity.
@Jeff: The point of my question is very specific and directed to very specific individuals.
There are some people (not, for example Jane, she’s consistently said we need to upgrade existing schools and I’ve said I agree) who’ve repeatedly said we need to build a “new school” if these developments are approved and more recently have said they don’t believe/trust/have confidence in the school’s/mayor’s projections to the contrary.
My question to those specific people only is: Do you believe we should be building a new school now, just in case Newton Public Schools and Mayor Fuller are wrong?
It’s yes or no.
No I don’t think we should build a new school. I do believe the city needs to continue to address the capacity issue which is different in many respects from the enrollment and class size issues.
If a school was built before 1973 or hasn’t had a comprehensive renovation/rebuilding since 1993, then most likely it has a capacity problem.
@Jane, my apologies the numbers I listed where the utilization of classrooms not school capacity. I could not find a policy on class size guidelines so I did a rough run at percents based on enrollment with max class sizes of 24 for all grades K-5 and the number of classroom the school has. The numbers look a bit better!
Angier- 87%
Bowen- 75%
Burr- 89%
Cabot- 89%
Countryside- 91%
Franklin- 85%
Horace Mann- 110%
Lincoln Eliot- 84%
Mason Rice- 101%
Memorial- Spaulding- 84%
Pierce- 75%
Underwood- 81%
Ward- 88%
Williams- 89%
Zervas- 74%
I’m sure someone has more accurate numbers if there are actual class guidelines but just wanted to correct my mistake. Thanks
@Greg– You’re oversimplifying this and dumbing down the question to “yes” or “no.” I think the City should require the developer to lease space to NPS at $0 NNN for 10 years, with the city holding two five year options to extend the lease at “market rate.” The space should be built to suit NPS needs, but easily converted to traditional office space by the landlord if the City decides not to extend. That’s what’s called a “win–win” deal.