High School Overcrowding 2024

[Anonymous]

This is the kind of nonsense that South Arlington regularly deals with. Sad not sad to see it spill over to North Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current projections don't really show us needing a 4th HS right now. All the classes in the pipeline (current K and up) are around 2000-2100 students, that means we need about 8200 HS seats.

That's:
W&L 2700
Wakefield 2100
Yorktown 2100
HB 450
CC 800 (assuming they add 300 or so in the next 4-5 years)
Shriver/Langston/New Directions 100

That's 8250.

So we have enough HS seats, but just barely. It probably would be smart to grow Tech to 800 not 600 to give us a bit more breathing room, but there's not a mad rush to build more than that.

By the same logic, MS seats are also fine. That's 6200 or so MS seats, which is 6 1000K MS + HB. So also fine.

All that said, the boundaries need to be done really well. Because we need to fill all the seats to make it work.

You are using enrollment numbers, not seat capacity numbers. The point is that our current buildings are overcrowded (except for HB).

Yes, these estimates aren't accurate looking ahead to when today's elementary kids are going to be in MS and HS (when we're going to gain at least 250 to 400 students per grade over what we have now).

APS has delayed and planned poorly for the past decade. They were going to throw everything at the Career Center (a terrible plan and not thought out at all) but of course have discovered that it won't work within budget. They will be making a final decision this week though based on absolutely no plan. I guess they'll be winging it and hope for the best.

So, I would look elsewhere. APS in the next decade is going to be pretty bad for secondary students. At any rate, don't judge based solely on which school is the most overcrowded now. APS will be re-drawing MS and HS boundaries again this fall, and will probably re-do them every 2 to 3 years for the foreseeable future.

Here are the kids currently in the system:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/U-MEM_281_Membership_Summary_All.pdf

Biggest class is rising 3rd grade -- 2110. I do agree that all our seats are used to max with the kids in the system.

I didn't know they screwed the W&L design. Why APS? Why?

I don’t think that’s it exactly. I’ve been told that W-L was even a much bigger school 40 years ago. Also the PTA supported expanding the school. That’s all I know. The PTA and then the BLPC had a lot of influence over the design of a W-L expansion at the Ed Center. I think the PTA was also bitter after losing a huge chunk of neighborhoods to Wakefield and Yorktown in the boundary change.

Not really, and I am a member of the BLPC. The budget was/is extremely tight and the directive was clear that the space had to be designed in such a way that it would be possible to use it as an ES in the future with minimal additional construction.

If they know there's a high likelihood of wanting it to be an elementary school, then they should just go ahead and make it an elementary school or a preschool center. Wasting time and money to make it a "commons" that won't significantly relieve the experience of overcrowded classrooms and hallways for the high school kids is just stupid.

During the next high school population decline the building could be repurposed as an elementary school. As I understand, the limited design work is a way of future-proofing the building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current projections don't really show us needing a 4th HS right now. All the classes in the pipeline (current K and up) are around 2000-2100 students, that means we need about 8200 HS seats.

That's:
W&L 2700
Wakefield 2100
Yorktown 2100
HB 450
CC 800 (assuming they add 300 or so in the next 4-5 years)
Shriver/Langston/New Directions 100

That's 8250.

So we have enough HS seats, but just barely. It probably would be smart to grow Tech to 800 not 600 to give us a bit more breathing room, but there's not a mad rush to build more than that.

By the same logic, MS seats are also fine. That's 6200 or so MS seats, which is 6 1000K MS + HB. So also fine.

All that said, the boundaries need to be done really well. Because we need to fill all the seats to make it work.

You are using enrollment numbers, not seat capacity numbers. The point is that our current buildings are overcrowded (except for HB).

Yes, these estimates aren't accurate looking ahead to when today's elementary kids are going to be in MS and HS (when we're going to gain at least 250 to 400 students per grade over what we have now).

APS has delayed and planned poorly for the past decade. They were going to throw everything at the Career Center (a terrible plan and not thought out at all) but of course have discovered that it won't work within budget. They will be making a final decision this week though based on absolutely no plan. I guess they'll be winging it and hope for the best.

So, I would look elsewhere. APS in the next decade is going to be pretty bad for secondary students. At any rate, don't judge based solely on which school is the most overcrowded now. APS will be re-drawing MS and HS boundaries again this fall, and will probably re-do them every 2 to 3 years for the foreseeable future.

Here are the kids currently in the system:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/U-MEM_281_Membership_Summary_All.pdf

Biggest class is rising 3rd grade -- 2110. I do agree that all our seats are used to max with the kids in the system.

I didn't know they screwed the W&L design. Why APS? Why?

I don’t think that’s it exactly. I’ve been told that W-L was even a much bigger school 40 years ago. Also the PTA supported expanding the school. That’s all I know. The PTA and then the BLPC had a lot of influence over the design of a W-L expansion at the Ed Center. I think the PTA was also bitter after losing a huge chunk of neighborhoods to Wakefield and Yorktown in the boundary change.

Not really, and I am a member of the BLPC. The budget was/is extremely tight and the directive was clear that the space had to be designed in such a way that it would be possible to use it as an ES in the future with minimal additional construction.

If they know there's a high likelihood of wanting it to be an elementary school, then they should just go ahead and make it an elementary school or a preschool center. Wasting time and money to make it a "commons" that won't significantly relieve the experience of overcrowded classrooms and hallways for the high school kids is just stupid.

During the next high school population decline the building could be repurposed as an elementary school. As I understand, the limited design work is a way of future-proofing the building.

Yes, I get that. But failing to optimize its use to alleviate the crowding in WL and just make it "commons" area is short-sisghted and a waste of money. And who's to say there will be a huge high school enrollment decline or that it will coincide with the next urgent need for elementary seats? Flexibility construction is fine. Just use it now in the most effective way it can be for its current purpose.

I think it would be wiser to think about the space as permanent HS needs because they can easily make it the IB program. It's not a great parcel for an elementary school. Flexible use; but making something that can be suited to tiny 5 year olds as well as tall 18 year olds is difficult and limiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current projections don't really show us needing a 4th HS right now. All the classes in the pipeline (current K and up) are around 2000-2100 students, that means we need about 8200 HS seats.

That's:
W&L 2700
Wakefield 2100
Yorktown 2100
HB 450
CC 800 (assuming they add 300 or so in the next 4-5 years)
Shriver/Langston/New Directions 100

That's 8250.

So we have enough HS seats, but just barely. It probably would be smart to grow Tech to 800 not 600 to give us a bit more breathing room, but there's not a mad rush to build more than that.

By the same logic, MS seats are also fine. That's 6200 or so MS seats, which is 6 1000K MS + HB. So also fine.

All that said, the boundaries need to be done really well. Because we need to fill all the seats to make it work.

You are using enrollment numbers, not seat capacity numbers. The point is that our current buildings are overcrowded (except for HB).

Yes, these estimates aren't accurate looking ahead to when today's elementary kids are going to be in MS and HS (when we're going to gain at least 250 to 400 students per grade over what we have now).

APS has delayed and planned poorly for the past decade. They were going to throw everything at the Career Center (a terrible plan and not thought out at all) but of course have discovered that it won't work within budget. They will be making a final decision this week though based on absolutely no plan. I guess they'll be winging it and hope for the best.

So, I would look elsewhere. APS in the next decade is going to be pretty bad for secondary students. At any rate, don't judge based solely on which school is the most overcrowded now. APS will be re-drawing MS and HS boundaries again this fall, and will probably re-do them every 2 to 3 years for the foreseeable future.

Here are the kids currently in the system:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/U-MEM_281_Membership_Summary_All.pdf

Biggest class is rising 3rd grade -- 2110. I do agree that all our seats are used to max with the kids in the system.

I didn't know they screwed the W&L design. Why APS? Why?

I don’t think that’s it exactly. I’ve been told that W-L was even a much bigger school 40 years ago. Also the PTA supported expanding the school. That’s all I know. The PTA and then the BLPC had a lot of influence over the design of a W-L expansion at the Ed Center. I think the PTA was also bitter after losing a huge chunk of neighborhoods to Wakefield and Yorktown in the boundary change.

Not really, and I am a member of the BLPC. The budget was/is extremely tight and the directive was clear that the space had to be designed in such a way that it would be possible to use it as an ES in the future with minimal additional construction.

If they know there's a high likelihood of wanting it to be an elementary school, then they should just go ahead and make it an elementary school or a preschool center. Wasting time and money to make it a "commons" that won't significantly relieve the experience of overcrowded classrooms and hallways for the high school kids is just stupid.

During the next high school population decline the building could be repurposed as an elementary school. As I understand, the limited design work is a way of future-proofing the building.

Yes, I get that. But failing to optimize its use to alleviate the crowding in WL and just make it "commons" area is short-sisghted and a waste of money. And who's to say there will be a huge high school enrollment decline or that it will coincide with the next urgent need for elementary seats? Flexibility construction is fine. Just use it now in the most effective way it can be for its current purpose.

I think it would be wiser to think about the space as permanent HS needs because they can easily make it the IB program. It's not a great parcel for an elementary school. Flexible use; but making something that can be suited to tiny 5 year olds as well as tall 18 year olds is difficult and limiting.

It's expensive to convert existing spaces to elementary bc of the bathrooms needed in the youngest classrooms. This was the takeaway from the SB session where they learned their plan for Montessori was too expensive to work. CDT asked why, and basically got the answer that trying to turn the career center into an elementary school was where the huge costs were coming from due to all the plumbing that would have to be installed. So

So if there's a lesson here, it's that you can't just take an older student space and repurpose it for elementary without spending a ton of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current projections don't really show us needing a 4th HS right now. All the classes in the pipeline (current K and up) are around 2000-2100 students, that means we need about 8200 HS seats.

That's:
W&L 2700
Wakefield 2100
Yorktown 2100
HB 450
CC 800 (assuming they add 300 or so in the next 4-5 years)
Shriver/Langston/New Directions 100

That's 8250.

So we have enough HS seats, but just barely. It probably would be smart to grow Tech to 800 not 600 to give us a bit more breathing room, but there's not a mad rush to build more than that.

By the same logic, MS seats are also fine. That's 6200 or so MS seats, which is 6 1000K MS + HB. So also fine.

All that said, the boundaries need to be done really well. Because we need to fill all the seats to make it work.

You are using enrollment numbers, not seat capacity numbers. The point is that our current buildings are overcrowded (except for HB).

Yes, these estimates aren't accurate looking ahead to when today's elementary kids are going to be in MS and HS (when we're going to gain at least 250 to 400 students per grade over what we have now).

APS has delayed and planned poorly for the past decade. They were going to throw everything at the Career Center (a terrible plan and not thought out at all) but of course have discovered that it won't work within budget. They will be making a final decision this week though based on absolutely no plan. I guess they'll be winging it and hope for the best.

So, I would look elsewhere. APS in the next decade is going to be pretty bad for secondary students. At any rate, don't judge based solely on which school is the most overcrowded now. APS will be re-drawing MS and HS boundaries again this fall, and will probably re-do them every 2 to 3 years for the foreseeable future.

Here are the kids currently in the system:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/U-MEM_281_Membership_Summary_All.pdf

Biggest class is rising 3rd grade -- 2110. I do agree that all our seats are used to max with the kids in the system.

I didn't know they screwed the W&L design. Why APS? Why?

I don’t think that’s it exactly. I’ve been told that W-L was even a much bigger school 40 years ago. Also the PTA supported expanding the school. That’s all I know. The PTA and then the BLPC had a lot of influence over the design of a W-L expansion at the Ed Center. I think the PTA was also bitter after losing a huge chunk of neighborhoods to Wakefield and Yorktown in the boundary change.

Not really, and I am a member of the BLPC. The budget was/is extremely tight and the directive was clear that the space had to be designed in such a way that it would be possible to use it as an ES in the future with minimal additional construction.

If they know there's a high likelihood of wanting it to be an elementary school, then they should just go ahead and make it an elementary school or a preschool center. Wasting time and money to make it a "commons" that won't significantly relieve the experience of overcrowded classrooms and hallways for the high school kids is just stupid.

During the next high school population decline the building could be repurposed as an elementary school. As I understand, the limited design work is a way of future-proofing the building.

Yes, I get that. But failing to optimize its use to alleviate the crowding in WL and just make it "commons" area is short-sisghted and a waste of money. And who's to say there will be a huge high school enrollment decline or that it will coincide with the next urgent need for elementary seats? Flexibility construction is fine. Just use it now in the most effective way it can be for its current purpose.

I think it would be wiser to think about the space as permanent HS needs because they can easily make it the IB program. It's not a great parcel for an elementary school. Flexible use; but making something that can be suited to tiny 5 year olds as well as tall 18 year olds is difficult and limiting.

Do most school districts in urban areas see huge decline in student populations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current projections don't really show us needing a 4th HS right now. All the classes in the pipeline (current K and up) are around 2000-2100 students, that means we need about 8200 HS seats.

That's:
W&L 2700
Wakefield 2100
Yorktown 2100
HB 450
CC 800 (assuming they add 300 or so in the next 4-5 years)
Shriver/Langston/New Directions 100

That's 8250.

So we have enough HS seats, but just barely. It probably would be smart to grow Tech to 800 not 600 to give us a bit more breathing room, but there's not a mad rush to build more than that.

By the same logic, MS seats are also fine. That's 6200 or so MS seats, which is 6 1000K MS + HB. So also fine.

All that said, the boundaries need to be done really well. Because we need to fill all the seats to make it work.

You are using enrollment numbers, not seat capacity numbers. The point is that our current buildings are overcrowded (except for HB).

Yes, these estimates aren't accurate looking ahead to when today's elementary kids are going to be in MS and HS (when we're going to gain at least 250 to 400 students per grade over what we have now).

APS has delayed and planned poorly for the past decade. They were going to throw everything at the Career Center (a terrible plan and not thought out at all) but of course have discovered that it won't work within budget. They will be making a final decision this week though based on absolutely no plan. I guess they'll be winging it and hope for the best.

So, I would look elsewhere. APS in the next decade is going to be pretty bad for secondary students. At any rate, don't judge based solely on which school is the most overcrowded now. APS will be re-drawing MS and HS boundaries again this fall, and will probably re-do them every 2 to 3 years for the foreseeable future.

Here are the kids currently in the system:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/U-MEM_281_Membership_Summary_All.pdf

Biggest class is rising 3rd grade -- 2110. I do agree that all our seats are used to max with the kids in the system.

I didn't know they screwed the W&L design. Why APS? Why?

I don’t think that’s it exactly. I’ve been told that W-L was even a much bigger school 40 years ago. Also the PTA supported expanding the school. That’s all I know. The PTA and then the BLPC had a lot of influence over the design of a W-L expansion at the Ed Center. I think the PTA was also bitter after losing a huge chunk of neighborhoods to Wakefield and Yorktown in the boundary change.

Not really, and I am a member of the BLPC. The budget was/is extremely tight and the directive was clear that the space had to be designed in such a way that it would be possible to use it as an ES in the future with minimal additional construction.

If they know there's a high likelihood of wanting it to be an elementary school, then they should just go ahead and make it an elementary school or a preschool center. Wasting time and money to make it a "commons" that won't significantly relieve the experience of overcrowded classrooms and hallways for the high school kids is just stupid.

During the next high school population decline the building could be repurposed as an elementary school. As I understand, the limited design work is a way of future-proofing the building.

Yes, I get that. But failing to optimize its use to alleviate the crowding in WL and just make it "commons" area is short-sisghted and a waste of money. And who's to say there will be a huge high school enrollment decline or that it will coincide with the next urgent need for elementary seats? Flexibility construction is fine. Just use it now in the most effective way it can be for its current purpose.

I think it would be wiser to think about the space as permanent HS needs because they can easily make it the IB program. It's not a great parcel for an elementary school. Flexible use; but making something that can be suited to tiny 5 year olds as well as tall 18 year olds is difficult and limiting.

Do most school districts in urban areas see huge decline in student populations?

Public schools in the DC area saw a dramatic decline in the 80s due to the very low birth rate in the mid to late 70s.

[Anonymous]

Lots of public schools closed or merged in DC, Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery, Prince Georges Counties, and all over the DC area in the 80s. Some independent and parochial schools also closed in the 80s-90s due to the population decline. The region could be on the cusp of a similarly dramatic population decline due to the currently low birth rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of public schools closed or merged in DC, Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery, Prince Georges Counties, and all over the DC area in the 80s. Some independent and parochial schools also closed in the 80s-90s due to the population decline. The region could be on the cusp of a similarly dramatic population decline due to the currently low birth rates.

But the region was in economic decline and had less in migration.

The population of schools is tied more to economic and population growth than any given birth rate.

Are we forecasting population growth in Arlington, but only of DINKS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of public schools closed or merged in DC, Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery, Prince Georges Counties, and all over the DC area in the 80s. Some independent and parochial schools also closed in the 80s-90s due to the population decline. The region could be on the cusp of a similarly dramatic population decline due to the currently low birth rates.

But the region was in economic decline and had less in migration.

The population of schools is tied more to economic and population growth than any given birth rate.

Are we forecasting population growth in Arlington, but only of DINKS?

I remember Lisa Stengle saying at a Board meeting that APS projects growth by birth rate, and then housing development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of public schools closed or merged in DC, Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery, Prince Georges Counties, and all over the DC area in the 80s. Some independent and parochial schools also closed in the 80s-90s due to the population decline. The region could be on the cusp of a similarly dramatic population decline due to the currently low birth rates.

But the region was in economic decline and had less in migration.

The population of schools is tied more to economic and population growth than any given birth rate.

Are we forecasting population growth in Arlington, but only of DINKS?

I remember Lisa Stengle saying at a Board meeting that APS projects growth by birth rate, and then housing development.

Is that legitimate, I think we have a lot of people who move to Arlington WITH kids in tow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of public schools closed or merged in DC, Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery, Prince Georges Counties, and all over the DC area in the 80s. Some independent and parochial schools also closed in the 80s-90s due to the population decline. The region could be on the cusp of a similarly dramatic population decline due to the currently low birth rates.

But the region was in economic decline and had less in migration.

The population of schools is tied more to economic and population growth than any given birth rate.

Are we forecasting population growth in Arlington, but only of DINKS?

I remember Lisa Stengle saying at a Board meeting that APS projects growth by birth rate, and then housing development.

Is that legitimate, I think we have a lot of people who move to Arlington WITH kids in tow?

That's why housing development factors in. They presume "x" average # of kids per unit per housing type. Though they still underestimate multi-family housing student generation, esp committed affordable housing.
There's only so much they can do to factor-in generational changeovers in existing housing stock sales.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of public schools closed or merged in DC, Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery, Prince Georges Counties, and all over the DC area in the 80s. Some independent and parochial schools also closed in the 80s-90s due to the population decline. The region could be on the cusp of a similarly dramatic population decline due to the currently low birth rates.

But the region was in economic decline and had less in migration.

The population of schools is tied more to economic and population growth than any given birth rate.

Are we forecasting population growth in Arlington, but only of DINKS?

I remember Lisa Stengle saying at a Board meeting that APS projects growth by birth rate, and then housing development.

Is that legitimate, I think we have a lot of people who move to Arlington WITH kids in tow?

That's why housing development factors in. They presume "x" average # of kids per unit per housing type. Though they still underestimate multi-family housing student generation, esp committed affordable housing.
There's only so much they can do to factor-in generational changeovers in existing housing stock sales.

Sure, but the consequence of having too few seats is much great than too many. And it appears it’s cyclical, so you have a drop for a decade and then it shoots back up again. If we hadn’t closed so many elementary schools or converted to senior centers we would t have had the boundary blood feud of the fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of public schools closed or merged in DC, Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery, Prince Georges Counties, and all over the DC area in the 80s. Some independent and parochial schools also closed in the 80s-90s due to the population decline. The region could be on the cusp of a similarly dramatic population decline due to the currently low birth rates.

But the region was in economic decline and had less in migration.

The population of schools is tied more to economic and population growth than any given birth rate.

Are we forecasting population growth in Arlington, but only of DINKS?

I remember Lisa Stengle saying at a Board meeting that APS projects growth by birth rate, and then housing development.

Is that legitimate, I think we have a lot of people who move to Arlington WITH kids in tow?

That's why housing development factors in. They presume "x" average # of kids per unit per housing type. Though they still underestimate multi-family housing student generation, esp committed affordable housing.
There's only so much they can do to factor-in generational changeovers in existing housing stock sales.

Sure, but the consequence of having too few seats is much great than too many. And it appears it’s cyclical, so you have a drop for a decade and then it shoots back up again. If we hadn’t closed so many elementary schools or converted to senior centers we would t have had the boundary blood feud of the fall.

That shipped sailed decades ago. I have had multiple kids in APS for over 20 years (thank God my youngest graduates in a year) and I have been hearing complaints about closing ES and community centers the entire time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of public schools closed or merged in DC, Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery, Prince Georges Counties, and all over the DC area in the 80s. Some independent and parochial schools also closed in the 80s-90s due to the population decline. The region could be on the cusp of a similarly dramatic population decline due to the currently low birth rates.

But the region was in economic decline and had less in migration.

The population of schools is tied more to economic and population growth than any given birth rate.

Are we forecasting population growth in Arlington, but only of DINKS?

I remember Lisa Stengle saying at a Board meeting that APS projects growth by birth rate, and then housing development.

Is that legitimate, I think we have a lot of people who move to Arlington WITH kids in tow?

That's why housing development factors in. They presume "x" average # of kids per unit per housing type. Though they still underestimate multi-family housing student generation, esp committed affordable housing.
There's only so much they can do to factor-in generational changeovers in existing housing stock sales.

Sure, but the consequence of having too few seats is much great than too many. And it appears it’s cyclical, so you have a drop for a decade and then it shoots back up again. If we hadn’t closed so many elementary schools or converted to senior centers we would t have had the boundary blood feud of the fall.

I agree! You can always close down seats; but you can't just magically open them when they're needed. They need to be available before they're needed. And so what if there are some extras? That's really a complaint??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of public schools closed or merged in DC, Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery, Prince Georges Counties, and all over the DC area in the 80s. Some independent and parochial schools also closed in the 80s-90s due to the population decline. The region could be on the cusp of a similarly dramatic population decline due to the currently low birth rates.

But the region was in economic decline and had less in migration.

The population of schools is tied more to economic and population growth than any given birth rate.

Are we forecasting population growth in Arlington, but only of DINKS?

I remember Lisa Stengle saying at a Board meeting that APS projects growth by birth rate, and then housing development.

Is that legitimate, I think we have a lot of people who move to Arlington WITH kids in tow?

That's why housing development factors in. They presume "x" average # of kids per unit per housing type. Though they still underestimate multi-family housing student generation, esp committed affordable housing.
There's only so much they can do to factor-in generational changeovers in existing housing stock sales.

Sure, but the consequence of having too few seats is much great than too many. And it appears it’s cyclical, so you have a drop for a decade and then it shoots back up again. If we hadn’t closed so many elementary schools or converted to senior centers we would t have had the boundary blood feud of the fall.

I agree! You can always close down seats; but you can't just magically open them when they're needed. They need to be available before they're needed. And so what if there are some extras? That's really a complaint??

Fundamentally, parents and families are a minority in Arlington, so any “excess” funding to education for a “just in case” school capacity causes lots of drama, they would much rather funnel the money into dog parts and AH, etc.