Goal 3 PREMIER WORKFORCE - George Mason …...and vetted for strategic compensation model design. In early spring 2016, employees were surveyed to gather opinions and preferences regarding

Goal 3

PREMIER WORKFORCE

Report to the School Board

January 25, 2018

FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS STRATEGIC PLAN 2015-20

2017-18

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

OVERARCHING Strategy 8 ...................................................................................................... 2

Metric: Market study results of FCPS compensation packages against area school divisions and

applicable market places ............................................................................................................ 2

Metric: Level of satisfaction with employment experience .........................................................10

Employee Engagement Survey ..........................................................................................10

Exit Survey .........................................................................................................................11

Metric: Retention Rates for teachers at critical years.................................................................14

Metric: Hire rates in difficult to fill positions and high needs schools including length of time to fill

these positions ..........................................................................................................................15

Metric: Staff diversity trends ......................................................................................................16

Metric: Number of employees below living wage .......................................................................19

Metric: Number of qualified applicants per advertised position ..................................................19

OVERARCHING Strategy 9 .....................................................................................................22

Metric: Percentage of employees rated as highly effective on performance evaluations ...........22

Teachers ............................................................................................................................23

School-based Administrators .............................................................................................23

Support Employees ............................................................................................................23

Metric: Comprehensive program evaluation on professional development ................................25

Metric: Employee assessment of professional development opportunities and activities ...........26

CLASS SIZE UPDATE .............................................................................................................27

CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING FORWARD ..........................................................................30

REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................38

APPENDIX ...............................................................................................................................39

Appendix A: Demographic Comparisons ...................................................................................39

Appendix B: Administrators and Support Staff Applicant Hiring Data ........................................40

Appendix C: Staffing Reserve Usage as of November 2017 .....................................................42

Appendix D: Elementary Class Size as of September 2017 ......................................................56

GOAL 3 PREMIER WORKFORCE

Page | 1


SY 2017-18

FCPS Strategic Plan Goal 3 PREMIER WORKFORCE

In July 2015, the School Board approved Ignite, the strategic plan for Fairfax County Public

Schools. Ignite represents the cooperative work of the School Board and Leadership Team, with

significant community input, to create a long term plan for continuous improvement. At the core of

this plan is the FCPS Portrait of a Graduate. The Ignite Plan contains four strategic goals:

Student Success, Caring Culture, Premier Workforce, and Resource Stewardship. All of the goals

contain overarching strategies, desired outcomes, actions, and monitoring metrics. This school

year, 2017-2018, marks the third year of implementation of the Strategic Plan. As the Strategic

Plan is a living document, some monitoring metrics have been adjusted from the previous year to

allow the Division to ensure it is focusing its efforts in the appropriate areas. The following are the

two overarching strategies and the desired outcomes for Goal 3, Premier Workforce:

Overarching Strategy 8

Recruit and retain high quality employees who are valued, respected, and rewarded for their efforts

Desired Outcomes

Recruit, hire, and retain employees to achieve a premier workforce

Achieve and preserve a culture of equity and fairness that will be representative of the

demographics of Fairfax County

FCPS will embrace and value innovation

Employees will benefit from competitive compensation packages

Overarching Strategy 9

Invest in growth and leadership opportunities for all employees by providing meaningful

professional development and quality feedback on performance

Desired Outcomes

Dynamic professional development opportunities will be available for all employees

FCPS will develop and maintain a performance evaluation process that is valued by all employees

Introduction

In Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), employees are supported from recruitment to

retirement. The Goal 3, Premier Workforce, narrative showcases how the Division recruits, hires,

retains and supports its employees through the work of the strategic plan. The narrative includes

updates of work that has been ongoing and provides information about new initiatives that

support a Premier Workforce.

Page | 2


FCPS employs over 28,500 benefits eligible staff and approximately 13,000 hourly and temporary

employees throughout the year. FCPS supports applicants, candidates, retirees, as well as

active employee and retiree’s dependents through various programs. FCPS covers more than

62,000 employees, retirees, and dependents under its medical and dental plans. This is larger

than the population for the City of Charlottesville. In addition, the Division processed 39,748 W2s

last calendar year.

FCPS employees compose a talented and diverse workforce that is the heartbeat of Portrait of a

Graduate. A highly effective workforce is crucial for the Division’s success, and having a strong

human capital strategy ensures that there are supportive, high functioning, and future focused

systems in place to attract, recruit, mentor, develop, recognize, and retain high performing

individuals.

Benchmarks must be established to ensure that the right work is taking place to support strategic

efforts. The monitoring metrics contained in the Strategic Plan provide the data points that allow

the Division to evaluate trends and progress. The conclusions that are developed from the data

and the initiatives that flow from these conclusions, provide the “why” behind the work taking

place to maintain a premier workforce from recruitment to retirement.

The Premier Workforce narrative provides a window into the landscape of efforts taking place to

recruit, hire, retain, and support employees that serve students throughout FCPS.

OVERARCHING Strategy 8

Recruit and retain high quality employees who are valued, respected, and rewarded for their

efforts

Metric: Market study results of FCPS compensation packages against area school divisions

and applicable market places

Over the last two years, FCPS has been engaged in a compensation and classification review

with the goal of developing pay scales that are market competitive and help attract and retain

employees through an optimal mix of salary and benefits. The ongoing work around the

compensation structure is a key piece to achieving a premier workforce.

In the first phase of the compensation study, a marketplace compensation comparison was

completed. A comprehensive survey was created and distributed to benchmark the total

Page | 3


compensation of teachers, instructional assistants, and a sampling of Unified Scale positions

against local school districts, local governments, the federal government, and private sector. The

benchmarked positions within the survey were selected to represent all levels of responsibility

and included positions that could be matched in both school and non-school environments.

Findings related to teacher compensation were presented to the School Board in December

2015, with market findings for Instructional Assistants, School-based Administrators, and Unified

Scale staff presented in February 2016.

In the second phase of the project, various compensation approaches were explored, evaluated,

and vetted for strategic compensation model design. In early spring 2016, employees were

surveyed to gather opinions and preferences regarding compensation program options. The

employee survey was followed by focus groups with representatives from various employee

groups and other relevant stakeholders to discuss the employee survey findings and gather

additional information regarding the priorities of employees. A report was presented to the Board

in March of 2016. The report recommended that to stay market competitive the Division must

make adjustments to its salary scales, especially at the beginning steps where salaries were most

notably below market among many employee groups. In July 2016, Teacher and School-based

Administrator Pay Scale recommendations were presented to the School Board and summarized

in the 2016 – 2017 Goal 3 report.

Page | 4


Investments into the teacher scale began in FY 2017, with a $40M infusion into the 2017 scale. In

FY 2018, following the adoption of the new scale structure, the Board approved a $26.6M

investment to implement that structure. The FY2019 budget includes a further investment of

$53.1M, leaving $53.1M remaining.

Degree BA BA +15 BA +30 MA MA+30 PhD

Step

0 1 48,012 49,653 50,912 53,707 55,248 57,211

1 2 48,974 50,649 51,926 54,779 56,350 58,699

2 3 50,301 51,718 53,017 55,929 57,914 60,027

3 4 51,595 53,230 54,169 57,554 59,316 61,450

4 5 52,917 54,572 55,795 58,972 61,144 63,348

5 6 54,564 55,889 57,128 60,805 62,700 64,931

6, 7 7 56,112 57,764 59,002 62,500 64,429 66,730

8 8 57,884 59,557 60,825 64,441 66,403 69,429

9 9 59,766 61,460 62,757 66,498 69,240 71,631

10 10 61,612 63,325 64,650 69,296 71,434 73,862

11 11 63,201 65,082 66,437 71,496 73,676 76,140

12 12 64,867 66,926 68,415 73,952 76,176 78,694

13 13 66,366 68,609 70,187 76,130 78,399 80,958

14 14 67,678 70,328 71,996 78,359 80,673 83,274

15 15* 69,139 71,610 73,670 80,353 82,701 85,329

16 71,025 73,462 75,579 82,685 85,064 87,745

17 72,969 74,853 76,876 84,681 87,089 89,795

18 74,970 76,861 78,716 86,777 89,220 91,959

19 77,150 80,236 80,236 88,060 90,370 94,144

20 89,778 92,096 95,726

21 91,555 93,879 97,364

22 93,044 95,803 98,440

23 (24) 94,587 97,191 100,217

Long 1** (25, 26) 95,988 98,655 101,150

Long 2** (27, 28) 97,417 100,106 102,605

Long 3** (29) 98,875 101,438 103,937

* Maximum entry step

** Eligibility for longevity step 1 is two years plus a MA

Eligibility for longevity step 2 is two years on longevity step 1

Eligibility for longevity step 3 is two years on longevity step 2

Credit towards longevity step increments only occurs during years in

which step increases are granted.

FY 2018 TEACHER SALARY SCALE194-day

Initial

P lacement

by years of

experience

Page | 5


Page | 6


The recommendation in July 2016 also resulted in the development of a new standalone school

based administrator pay scale.

Page | 7


The Administrator scale is scheduled to be implemented in FY 2019. This is the same

implementation date as the new Unified Scale.

Addressing compensation for support staff is an equally important piece of the compensation

study. Much like teachers and school based administrators, enhancement to compensation for

support staff is market driven.

In December 2016, recommendations were made for enhancements to the Classroom

Instructional Support pay scales. In April 2017, proposed modifications to the Unified Scale were

introduced. These proposed changes deconstruct the single unified scale into four separate

schedules that will better align compensation to the market, providing employees a more

appropriate salary structure.

In July 2017 along with the new teacher scale, FCPS implemented new scales for instructional

assistants, public health training assistants, public health attendants, and employees on the new

US – Schedule H (hourly contracted positions, such as bus drivers and food service workers).

Page | 8


Page | 9


The Unified Scale contains over 800 position titles and includes positions that are classified as

exempt and non-exempt (hourly). On average, current pay rates are below market at the range

minimum and closer to market at the maximum. Given the scope of work associated with

appropriately reviewing and aligning these positions, additional time has been dedicated to

completing the revision of the remainder of the schedules for the Unified Scale.

During the 2017 – 2018 school year, classification and compensation began for positions on the

Unified Scale. It includes a review and revision of job descriptions, job surveys of employees and

managers about the work being done by each position, market comparisons, and desk audits

where needed. Following these initial steps, individual positions will go through a leveling and

titling process to properly slot them on the revised Unified Scales. In addition, a review of the

organizational structures (departments and offices) will be conducted to help ensure proper

alignment and internal position equity. The result of this work is a recommendation for four (4)

salary schedules for the Unified Scale:

Schedule H: Hourly contracted positions, such as bus drivers and food service workers

(approximately 10 positions and 3,000 employees, and implemented July 2017)

StepTransportation

Attendant

Transportation

Van DriverBus Driver I Bus Driver II

Bus Driver

Floater

Bus Driver

SupervisorStep

Food Services

Worker

Food Services

Kitchen

Manager I

Food Services

Kitchen

Manager II

Food Services

Kitchen

Manager III

1 14.7300 16.0413 18.0569 18.7828 19.5382 21.9899 1 13.1300 16.5000 17.1600 17.8464

2 15.3560 16.7231 18.8247 19.5812 20.3685 22.9246 2 13.6880 17.2013 17.8893 18.6049

3 15.9703 17.3922 19.5772 20.3645 21.1829 23.8415 3 14.2355 17.8893 18.6049 19.3491

4 16.6091 18.0879 20.3602 21.1792 22.0304 24.7950 4 14.8050 18.6049 19.3491 20.1230

5 17.2734 18.8114 21.1747 22.0259 22.9117 25.7870 5 15.3972 19.3491 20.1230 20.9280

6 17.9644 19.5636 22.0222 22.9073 23.8283 26.8185 6 16.0131 20.1230 20.9280 21.7651

7 18.5931 20.2484 22.7927 23.7089 24.6617 27.7568 7 16.5735 20.8273 21.6604 22.5268

8 19.2439 20.9570 23.5905 24.5385 25.5251 28.7284 8 17.1536 21.5563 22.4185 23.3153

9 19.9174 21.6907 24.4159 25.3977 26.4187 29.7336 9 17.7540 22.3108 23.2032 24.1313

10 20.6145 22.4500 25.2705 26.2867 27.3431 30.7745 10 18.3753 23.0916 24.0153 24.9759

11 21.2330 23.1234 26.0284 27.0749 28.1636 31.6977 11 18.9266 23.7844 24.7358 25.7252

12 21.8700 23.8169 26.8093 27.8873 29.0086 32.6487 12 19.4944 24.4979 25.4778 26.4970

13 22.5261 24.5315 27.6134 28.7239 29.8783 33.6282 13 20.0792 25.2329 26.2422 27.2919

14 23.0892 25.1450 28.3039 29.4420 30.6259 34.4691 14 20.5812 25.8637 26.8982 27.9742

15 23.6664 25.7735 29.0114 30.1780 31.3913 35.3307 15 21.0957 26.5103 27.5707 28.6735

16 24.2581 26.4179 29.7369 30.9323 32.1758 36.2137 16 21.6231 27.1730 28.2599 29.3903

17 24.8646 27.0782 30.4803 31.7057 32.9805 37.1192 17 27.8524 28.9664 30.1251

18 27.7553 31.2424 32.4982 33.8048 38.0471 18 28.5487 29.6906 30.8782

19 28.3103 31.8669 33.1482 34.4810 38.8083 19 29.1196 30.2844 31.4958

StepTransportation

Attendant

Transportation

Van DriverBus Driver I Bus Driver II

Bus Driver

Floater

Bus Driver

SupervisorStep

Dining Room

AssistantStep Parent Liaison

1 13.5661 14.6531 16.4943 17.1574 17.8474 20.0869 1 11.1124 1 16.4943

2 14.1088 15.2759 17.1956 17.8867 18.6058 20.9407 2 11.5846 2 17.1956

3 14.6732 15.8871 17.883 18.6022 19.3498 21.7783 3 12.0482 3 17.8830

4 15.2602 16.5226 18.5983 19.3464 20.1239 22.6493 4 12.5299 4 18.5983

5 15.7943 17.1835 19.3423 20.1198 20.929 23.5554 5 13.0309 5 19.3423

6 16.3469 17.8706 20.1164 20.9249 21.7662 24.4977 6 13.5523 6 20.1164

7 16.9192 18.4961 20.8203 21.6572 22.5275 25.3548 7 14.0267 7 20.8203

8 17.5114 19.1434 21.549 22.415 23.3162 26.2423 8 14.5175 8 21.5490

9 18.0365 19.8136 22.303 23.1998 24.1325 27.1605 9 15.0257 9 22.3030

10 18.5777 20.5072 23.0836 24.0119 24.9769 28.1113 10 15.5518 10 23.0836

11 19.135 21.1223 23.7759 24.7319 25.7264 28.9546 11 16.0181 11 23.7759

12 19.6134 21.7558 24.4893 25.474 26.4982 29.8233 12 16.4986 12 24.4893

13 20.1041 22.4086 25.2238 26.2382 27.2927 30.7181 13 16.9937 13 25.2238

14 20.6063 22.969 25.8545 26.8941 27.9756 31.4862 14 17.4185 14 25.8545

15 21.1216 23.5431 26.5008 27.5664 28.6747 32.2732 15 17.8540 15 26.5008

16 21.6495 24.1317 27.1635 28.2555 29.3914 33.0798 16 18.3002 16 27.1635

17 22.0824 24.7349 27.8426 28.9619 30.1264 33.907 17 18.7577 17 27.8426

18 25.3534 28.5387 29.6859 30.8794 34.7546 18 19.2266 18 28.5387

19 25.8604 29.1092 30.2796 31.4971 35.4499 19 19.6112 19 29.1092

Food Services

Manager In

Training

17.1960

17.7979

18.4208

19.0656

14.1000

14.6993

15.2872

15.8987

16.5347

Old Transportation Pay PlanDining Room

Assistant Pay Plan

FY 2018 Unified Scale - Schedule H

Food Services Pay PlanCurrent Transportation Pay Plan

24.8841

24.3961

Parent Liaison

Pay Plan

23.8011

23.2206

22.6542

22.1017

21.5626

20.9346

20.3248

19.7329

Page | 10


Schedule A: Overtime eligible positions, such as custodians and office assistants

(approximately 270 positions and 4,000 employees)

Schedule B: Professional level positions, such as social workers and coordinators

(approximately 470 positions and 1,800 employees)

Schedule C: Senior management positions, such as directors and executive principals

(approximately 50 positions / employees)

Implementation of the remaining scales, which includes Unified Scale – Schedules A, B and C, as

well as the School Based Administrator scale is slated for July 2018; however, leveling and titling

work will continue through the 2018 – 2019 school year. The new salary scales allow for better

alignment with the market and are more easily understood by current and future employees.

Metric: Level of satisfaction with employment experience

In order to maintain a Premier Workforce, retention must be treated with the same level of

urgency as recruitment and hiring. FCPS strives for high employee engagement so individuals

are not only invested in their work but enthusiastic and proud of being a part of Fairfax County

Public Schools. However it is not enough for the Division to strive toward this end, FCPS must

invest in its employees and commit to their success.

Employee Engagement Survey

In Spring 2017, FCPS conducted the second annual Employee Engagement Survey. The survey

was a replacement for the former Working Conditions Survey and provided all employees an

opportunity to have their voice heard and to share their thoughts and feelings about their level of

engagement with FCPS.

The initial survey in 2016 provided baseline data. The 2017 survey provided the first comparative

data. Overall, engagement increased across the Division and more individuals participated in the

survey during the second year. At the Division level, the survey showed:

65 percent of FCPS employees participated in the survey, as compared to 63 percent in

2016.

83 percent of employees who participated in the survey were engaged or highly engaged

in their work, which was an increase of 6 points over 2016.

86 percent of employees either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I am proud

to work for FCPS,” as compared to 83 percent last year.

Questions about shared values among employees received the highest percentage of

favorable responses for the second year in a row.

Page | 11


While questions about feedback and recognition received the lowest percentage of

favorable responses in 2016, the Division saw its greatest gains in this area between

year 1 and year 2 of the survey.

The Engagement Survey data reveals many areas of strength across the Division. It also

highlights areas where FCPS can make gains in terms of employee engagement. For the second

year in a row, “overwhelmed” was the most common response when employees (instructional

and support) were asked “What word best describes how you feel about your work?” In addition,

only 66 percent agreed / strongly agreed with “I am hopeful about the future of FCPS.” While this

is an increase over the 58 percent that agreed/strongly agreed with this statement last year, there

is still room for improvement. Efforts related to employee engagement remain a priority and will

be revisited in Goal 2: Caring Culture.

Exit Survey

In January 2015, the Department of Human Resources implemented an exit survey (via email) for

employees who voluntarily separate from FCPS. Over the last two years, this survey tool has

been revised with a goal of obtaining more informative data from employees that separate from

FCPS. In the current version of the survey, employees may only select two factors that influence

their decision to leave FCPS and was expanded to include retirees (fall 2017). These

enhancements will help the Division more keenly identify the factors that are driving employees’

decision making with regard to continuing employment. Employees that separate involuntarily

from FCPS are excluded from the survey.

Page | 12


Employees that leave the Division were asked the extent to which the following factors (pick two)

were involved in their decision to separate their employment with FCPS. The top reasons offered

by licensed and support staff are reflected in the following graphs:

Page | 13


* Employees could select multiple factors for 2014-15 and 2015-16 and only two factors for 2016-17.

* Employees could select multiple factors for 2014-15 and 2015-16 and only two factors for 2016-17.

An analysis of the data shows that in each of the last three years personal and salary reasons are

the top two factors influencing licensed personnel’s decision to depart the Division, although

commute, leadership support, and workload also ranked high. The same two reasons – personal

and pay – were the top rationale for support personnel and IAs leaving FCPS. The response rate

between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2017 was 45 percent.

Page | 14


In addition, the separation data shows that a large proportion of those who leave are newer

employees (43%) having 3 or fewer years of service. A large majority of all departing employees

(87%) said they were satisfied with their experience at FCPS and 87 percent said they would

consider working for the organization again. FCPS continues to revise data collection methods for

when employees exit the system to better understand the reasoning for departure.

Metric: Retention Rates for teachers at critical years

The Division has a teacher retention rate of approximately 90 percent. This is 4 percent better

than the state or national averages. As the below chart shows, the Division’s rate has held steady

the last three years.

Looking specifically at new teachers (years 1 – 5), the retention rate declines from year 1 to year

5. The circumstances facing FCPS with regard to teacher retention mirror what is taking place

across the U.S. Over a decade ago it was estimated that between 40 to 50 percent of new

teachers left within the first five years (Ingersoll, 2003). More recent research has found that 41%

of new teachers leave teaching within five years of the start of their careers (Perda, 2013). For

the most recent teacher cohort, the Division’s attrition rate of teachers at year five (44%) is higher

than this average. As the following chart depicts, retention rate for teachers in the first five years

has been very similar to the national average in teacher retention for beginning teachers.

Number of Teachers at

Start of Period

Separations and

Retirements Turnover

Nov 2013 - Oct 2014 15,083 1,416 9.39%

Nov 2014 - Oct 2015 14,929 1,497 10.03%

Nov 2015 - Oct 2016 14,968 1,488 9.94%

Full Time Teacher Turnover

School

Year

Cohort

New

(Rookie)

Teacher

Hires

Retention Year 1

Cumulative

Terms/Percent

Retained

Retention Year 2

Cumulative

Terms/Percent

Retained

Retention Year 3

Cumulative

Terms/Percent

Retained

Retention Year 4

Cumualative

Terms/Percent

Retained

Retention Year 5

Cumulative

Terms/Percent

Retained

2012-13 846 62 / 92.67% 149 / 82.39% 223 / 73.64% 310 / 63.36% 369 / 56.38%

2011-12 965 54 /94.4% 119 /88.0% 201 / 79.2% 265 / 72.54% 356 / 62.18%

2010-11 623 40 / 93.6% 87 / 86.0% 145 / 76.7% 188 / 69.8% 253 / 59.4%

2009-10 438 27 / 93.8% 72 / 83.6% 111 / 74.7% 144 / 67.1% 167 / 61.8%

2008-09 597 55 / 90.8% 100 / 83.3% 155 / 74.0% 194 / 67.5% 232 / 61.1%

NEW TEACHER COHORT RETENTION DATA

Page | 15


While the turnover data reflects individuals leaving FCPS, the below table showcases the

percentage of teachers transferring between buildings within FCPS.

As reflected in the data, FCPS has experienced an increase in teacher movement among schools

in recent years.

Metric: Hire rates in difficult to fill positions and high needs schools including length of time

to fill these positions

As the nation, Virginia and FCPS face a teacher shortage, ensuring quality teachers in hard to fill

positions and high needs schools becomes even more pressing. This is in part a result of fewer

people going into teaching. Nationally, between 2009 and 2014 there was a 35 percent drop in

people entering teacher preparation programs. Projections showed that 2016 had the fewest

number of available teaching candidates in the last ten years and that this declining trend will

continue (Sutcher, 2016). In addition, a recent study by NCTQ (2017), found that Fairfax County

Public Schools is the fourth most difficult school system in the nation in which a teacher can afford

to purchase a house. This high cost of living compounds the problems created by the overall

teacher shortage. However, many school districts face similar challenges to FCPS, as nearly all

systems struggle with shortages of teachers, particularly in math, science, technology, ESOL, and

special education. While specific subject and specialty areas have traditionally been classified as

“hard-to-fill,” general elementary education has joined the list of hard-to-fill area for FCPS.

Number of Teachers at

Start of Period Internal Transfers Rate

Nov 2013 - Oct 2014 15,083 935 6.20%

Nov 2014 - Oct 2015 14,929 1,061 7.11%

Nov 2015 - Oct 2016 14,968 1,293 8.64%

Full Time Teacher Transfer Rate

Page | 16


Despite the challenges, through the implementation of improved recruitment and hiring strategies

FCPS has seen a decrease in the number of vacancies in Project Momentum (PM) intensive

schools as compared to last year. This decrease was achieved at the same time FCPS hired 50

more teachers in these schools. The following chart provides the current vacancies in the PM

intensive schools as of October 21, 2017 and as compared to October 21, 2016:

Project Momentum Teaching Vacancies

Total Teaching Vacancies

Vacancies as of July 1st

Vacancies on Opening Day of School

Vacancies as of October 21st

2016-2017 136 53 18 10

2017-2018 186 51 3 2

Being able to hire high quality candidates early and quickly is a powerful strategy to staff hard-to-

fill positions and ensure every classroom has an effective teacher on the first day of school.

Recruitment efforts surrounding Project Momentum schools resulted in only 3 PM school

vacancies on day 1 of school, with a fill rate of 99.4 percent day 1 as compared to 87 percent last

year in these schools.

During the spring 2017 hiring process, the recruitment and hiring schedule focused on attracting

and hiring teachers for high needs schools and hard-to-fill roles earlier in the process. The nine

intensive PM Schools were given the opportunity to meet candidates earlier in the spring. This early

access to candidates included a Critical Needs Job Fair in February. Early hiring and staffing hard-

to-fill and PM schools will remain a priority for FCPS.

Metric: Staff diversity trends

Fairfax County Public Schools serves a diverse population of more than 189,000 students. In

terms of racial diversity, 40 percent of students are white, 10 percent are African American, 19

percent are Asian American, and 25 percent are Hispanic. However, the typical American school

teacher remains a white female. This is also accurate for FCPS where 65.2 percent of teachers

are white females. Nationally, this percentage is above 70 percent (NCES, 2017).

As a diverse school system, it is critical that the Division employ a diverse workforce. Every child

has a right to an excellent public school education that is taught and led by qualified and caring

staff, including educators who look like them, who share similar cultural experiences, and who

serve as role models. More diverse teaching and leadership cadres that reflect the demographics

of the student body can provide improved educational experiences for children and adults.

Everyone benefits from a culturally diverse teaching workforce.

Page | 17


The Division celebrates all types of diversity that employees and students bring to FCPS. When

analyzing diversity trends among staff, the Division has narrowed the lens to looking at

demographics among staff in terms of race and gender. Specifically in terms of race, the data

includes employees who identify as: Black, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaskan

Native, Asian, Pacific Islander, two or more races, and White.

When looking at the overall employee diversity trends for race, teacher diversity has grown from

15.9% diverse in 2012 to 19.3% diverse in 2017. Diversity for school based administrators has

regressed slightly to 23.6% from 24.7% in 2012; however, there has been an increase in diversity

among leadership and management positions.

The information can be further delineated by race:

FCPS Workforce Diversity Trends

School Based Administrator 24.7% 164 24.5% 164 24.2% 161 23.7% 159 23.0% 154 23.6% 158

Leadership Team and Management** 16.6% 30 18.3% 33 21.7% 39 20.8% 38 20.1% 38 21.7% 41

Teacher 15.9% 2363 16.2% 2444 16.8% 2512 17.4% 2604 18.3% 2756 19.3% 2936

*Reporting period Nov 1 - Sept 30

**Employee group redefined to reflect leadership team members, executive principals, directors, and coordinators

2017*2012 2013 2014 2015* 2016*

Total

Minority Black

Hispanic or

Latino

American

Indian or

Alaskan

Native Asian

Pacific

Islander

Two or

more races White

School Based Administrators 23.6% 16.4% 3.0% 0.2% 3.1% 0.0% 0.9% 76.4%

Leadership Team and Management 21.7% 10.1% 4.2% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 0.9% 78.3%

Teachers 19.3% 7.3% 4.4% 0.2% 5.2% 0.0% 2.2% 80.7%

Workforce Diversity as of September 30, 2017

Page | 18


While the FCPS percentage of white teachers (80%) is the same as the national average, FCPS

is above the national average for Black and Asian teachers. The Division continues to recruit,

hire, and retain a workforce that reflects the students it serves. However, further data analysis will

assist the Division as FCPS expands efforts to support the commitment to a diverse workforce.

The diversity of the candidate pool is also an important data piece. The following tables provides

information regarding the diversity of teaching applicants to FCPS over the last 5 years. This

information can then be compared to the teacher diversity hiring data for the same time frame.

Teachers - Race

Teachers - Gender

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Teacher Applicants (Nov. 1-Oct.31) 10,316 7,626 6,901 6,949 6,869

Qualified Applicants 9,358 7,105 6,579 6,602 6,303

Total Hired for School Year 2,056 1,704 2,043 1,898 1,870

Male (Total Applicants) 2,379 23.06% 1,768 23.18% 1,510 21.88% 1,673 24.08% 1,612 23.47%

Male (Qualified Applicants) 2,146 22.93% 1,616 22.74% 1,444 21.95% 1,608 24.36% 1,448 22.97%

Male (Hired) 334 16.25% 299 17.55% 312 15.27% 313 16.49% 266 14.22%

Female (Total Applicants) 7,706 74.70% 5,557 72.87% 5,302 76.83% 5,185 74.62% 5,169 75.25%

Female (Qualified Applicants) 7,005 74.86% 5,209 73.31% 5,050 76.76% 4,906 74.31% 4,773 75.73%

Female (Hired) 1,722 83.75% 1,405 82.45% 1,731 84.73% 1,585 83.51% 1,604 85.78%

Gender Not Given (Total Applicants) 231 2.24% 301 3.95% 89 1.29% 90 1.30% 88 1.28%

Gender Not Given (Qualified Applicants) 207 2.21% 280 3.94% 85 1.29% 88 1.33% 82 1.30%

While the Division has made growth over the last several areas, there is clearly more progress

that can be made (Appendix B contains similar data sets for administrators and support staff).

Page | 19


Metric: Number of employees below living wage

In July 2012, Fairfax County set a Living Wage of $13.13. As part of the budget setting process

for FY 2017, the School Board approved a recommendation that all Division employees be paid

at a rate that met or exceeded the living wage of $13.13. For the 2016 – 2017 school year, no

contracted employee was being paid less than $13.13.

Effective October 1, 2016, Fairfax County adopted an updated Living Wage of $14.50. For FY

2017, the Living Wage for Arlington County is $14.50 and Alexandria City is $14.13. These are

also the living wages for these school systems.

Given this increase in the living wage, FCPS currently employs four types of employee groups

that fall below the recently adopted Fairfax County living wage – custodians, food service

employees, public health attendants, and transportation attendants (old transportation pay plan).

After a step increase has been provided for all employees for FY 2018, 827 employees will have

hourly rates falling below the living wage. This number has decreased from 1,075 employees that

previously had hourly wages below $14.50 last year. It is estimated to cost $0.5 million to bring all

employees to the living wage of $14.50.

Metric: Number of qualified applicants per advertised position

In spring 2017, the Division took a more targeted and strategic approach to recruiting and

selecting great teachers. FCPS was, and will continue to be, focused on expanding and

enhancing efforts to build and cultivate a diverse talent pool of effective teachers. During the most

recent recruiting season, FCPS moved from a strategy of “early signing contracts” to simply

“hiring earlier.” While the terms sound similar, the change had a significant impact in bringing

talented teachers to the Division earlier in the hiring season. The following chart depicts the

number of teaching contracts offered to teaching candidates before May 1 over the last three

years:

Page | 20


Conventional wisdom dictates that there are more highly qualified candidates available at the

beginning of the hiring season. While not a guarantee for success, recruiting and hiring teachers

earlier in the recruitment season increases the prospect of ensuring an effective teacher in each

classroom.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Teacher Hires Prior to May 1

Page | 21


FCPS hires more than 1,700 teachers a year, with approximately 850 teachers hired after July 1.

This means that Fairfax County hires nearly 50 percent of its teachers within 60 days of the start

of the new school year, with over 20 percent being hired within 30 days of the first day of school.

The need to hire teachers earlier is even clearer when looking at the FCPS hiring trends month

by month for February through October. As the comparison shows, a move from “early signing

contracts” to an approach of “hiring earlier” can change the landscape of when FCPS hires new

teachers, and potentially enhance the quality of these teachers.

This approach has also been a strong tool in reducing the number of vacancies at the beginning

of the school year. In fall 2015, FCPS started school with more than 200 teacher vacancies.

When school started in August 2017, the Division had less than 100 teacher vacancies. While this

number leaves room for improvement, it represents a fill rate of 99.4 percent and is a reduction of

over 100 first day vacancies in the span of two hiring cycles.

Given the trend of a declining number of unique applicants over the last several years, the

challenge of filing all available positions each year will only continue to grow.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Teacher Hires by Month

2016

2017

Page | 22


In previous years, the Division has reported on number of applications. This can provide an

inflated sense of the number of individuals actually applying to teach in FCPS schools. By looking

at the number of unique applicants (below), the data reflects an accurate number of teaching

applicants to FCPS, regardless if the individual applied to 1 or 8 different positions. The Division

has seen a drastic reduction in the number of available candidates, while the need for teachers

has stayed very consistent.

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Teacher Applicants (Nov. 1-Oct.31) 10,316 7,626 6,901 6,949 6,869

Teacher Hires 2,056 1,704 2,043 1,898 1,870

OVERARCHING Strategy 9

Invest in growth and leadership opportunities for all employees, encourage innovation, and

celebrate success.

Metric: Percentage of employees rated as highly effective on performance evaluations

FCPS must have highly effective teachers and leaders in every classroom and school to ensure

that all students are provided the education they deserve. Important components of effectiveness

are evaluation, self-reflection, and professional growth. Effectiveness also requires embracing

the complexity and importance of providing feedback to all employees. Set within a climate of

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Teacher Applicants and Hires

Teacher Applicants(Nov. 1-Oct.31)

Teacher Hires

Page | 23


caring culture, the FCPS evaluation model is growth focused and layered with support to help

teachers (and all employees) be successful.

For teachers on a continuing contract, summative evaluation takes place every three years.

Outside of the evaluation cycle, employees participate in yearly self-assessment and goal setting

conferences with their program manager. This three year cycle is designed to provide consistent

opportunity for growth and feedback. For probationary teachers, evaluation takes place every

year (for three years). This annual evaluation approach ensures that probationary teachers are

provided consistent feedback and guidance from principals and other program supervisors.

During the actual evaluation period, program managers and employees are required to maintain

documentation regarding performance. The development, maintenance, and sharing of such data

and information allows for self-reflection as well as constructive feedback. When there are gaps

between expected performance and the actual performance of an employee, FCPS provides

support resources so that the employee can improve and meet standards.

All employees may be evaluated when their evaluator or a designee elects to place them on an

evaluation cycle. Standard procedures for implementing the evaluation process are outlined

below:

Teachers

Teachers on an annual contract are evaluated annually until their third year. Thereafter, teachers

move to a continuing contract and are evaluated on a three-year cycle, one year on summative

evaluation and two years on formative evaluation. When teachers transfer to a new work site,

their evaluation cycle remains unchanged. In school year 2016 – 17, there were approximately

4,149 teachers evaluated on an annual contract and 3,577 evaluated on a continuing contract.

School-based Administrators

School-based administrators are evaluated on the same cycle as teachers: annually during their

first three years and thereafter in the summative evaluation year of the three-year cycle.

Additionally, school-based administrators are evaluated when conditionally reappointed without

reassignment or demotion. Principals who have previously served in an FCPS administrator

position are evaluated in their first year. In school year 2016 – 17, there were approximately 293

school-based administrators evaluated.

Support Employees

FCPS’ support employees are placed on an evaluation cycle that includes both formative and

summative years of evaluation. Evaluations occur every year during the first three years.

Page | 24


Summative evaluations are required during the third year of every subsequent three-year

cycle, or during the first year following a change in level or position.

For the 2016 – 2017 school year, 98 percent of teachers and 99 percent of administrators were

rated as effective or highly effective by the Division. This is consistent with the previous year.

Page | 25


While the data paints an extremely positive picture for the effectiveness of FCPS staff, the

Division must always strive for improvement. A core piece of this improvement is a robust

evaluation framework that fairly, but honestly, evaluates staff.

Metric: Comprehensive program evaluation on professional development

A comprehensive program evaluation and needs assessment of professional development (PD)

has been completed by the Office of Research and Strategic Improvement (program evaluation)

and the Office of Professional Learning & Family Engagement (needs assessment).

Recommendations include creating a comprehensive PD System that identifies and adheres to

cultural norms, creates a robust infrastructure to monitor the effectiveness of PD, and provide

high quality PD experiences aligned to Division goals.

The needs assessment survey includes input from all employee groups around the type of PD

needed to be successful in current and successive roles, and how the PD should be delivered.

The analysis of both reports will serve as a foundation for the development of a professional

development plan for all FCPS employees across three main lanes: leadership, instructional

employees, and support employees.

Page | 26


Metric: Employee assessment of professional development opportunities and activities

High quality professional development (PD) has a direct impact on student learning. The Office of

Professional Learning and Family Engagement in the Chief Academic and Equity Office provides

Divisonwide support through:

Leadership Development - develop, design, and provide learning opportunities for school-

based and central office leaders to build capacity for success in current position, and

create pipelines of leaders to fill positions throughout the division

Systemwide Professional Development - create and provide learning opportunities for

instructional and support employees to build capacity to be successful in current role

Instructional Coaching - build the capacity of teachers through instructional coaches who

lead their colleagues in data analysis, best practices, and collaboration to improve

student learning

Cultural Proficiency - foster a caring culture that is welcoming and promotes a sense of

belonging for all and execute a professional development plan to support the FCPS

promise to demonstrate cultural competency and sensitivity when supporting families,

students, and employees

Page | 27


CLASS SIZE UPDATE

Elementary class size continues to be a factor that the Division monitors and makes annual

efforts to address. Regulation 1302 provides guidelines for grades K-6 class sizes and provides

standard configurations, including class size caps, for kindergarten, grades

1-3, and grades 4-6. For FY 2018, additional funding of $1.7 million, or 20 teacher and

instructional assistant positions, was added to the staffing reserve to meet the guidelines set forth

in the Regulation. Since FY 2015, a total of 231 positions were permanently added to the

staffing reserve to address class size.

In terms of class size at each grade level, the staffing guidelines provide for a teacher and an

instructional assistant for all kindergarten classes with no individual class to exceed 28 students.

This year the average kindergarten class has 22.1 students.

The target class size in grades 1-3 is 27 and should not exceed 29 students. Additional resources

are allocated to a school when all classes at a grade level reach 28 students or more. The

standard class size in grades 4-6 is 29 students. When enrollment requires classes with 30 or

more students, a teacher is allocated from the reserve, and students are reassigned to balance

class sizes to 29 or fewer. The regulation does contain a caveat that provides principals the

flexibility to maintain classes at 30 or above if the principal determines this is best for the school

and communicates this to parents.

Prior to allocating additional positions from the staffing reserve, region assistant superintendents

and Human Resources examine the current use of school resources, the number of students at

each grade level, the composition of classes, and the school’s available classroom space. Once

the determination is made that additional positions are necessary, the allocation of an

instructional assistant or teacher is recommended.

Throughout the summer, the Department of Human Resources collaborated with the

Departments of Information Technology, Facilities and Transportation Services, and Financial

Services, as well as the Region Offices, to obtain data on class sizes and monitor the schools’

configuration of classes and projected enrollment, and make staffing allocation adjustments.

Through November 2017, $13.3 million has been dedicated to addressing class sizes, with 155

teachers and 14 instructional assistants being distributed to schools across the Division.

Page | 28


The following provides a summary of class sizes in kindergarten, grades 1-3 and grades 4-6:

Kindergarten Class Sizes

Total Classes Classes below

20 students

Classes with

20-28 students

Classes with

29-31 students

572 111 461 0

Additional teacher positions were allocated to a school whenever class sizes for kindergarten

exceeded 28 students per teacher. Because of the timing between when teacher positions are

allocated and the teacher is hired, there may be brief periods of time where kindergarten classes

exceed 28 students per teacher.

Grades 1-3 Class Sizes


20 students Classes with

20-27 students Classes with

28-29 students Classes with

30-31 students

1,825 397 1,373 48 7

Additional resources were allocated, either teacher or instructional assistant positions, when class

sizes in grades 1 through 3 exceeded 27 students per teacher.

Grades 4-6 Class Sizes


20 students

Classes with

20-29 students

Classes with

30-32 students

1,731 148 1,526 57

Additional resources were allocated, either teacher or instructional assistant positions, when class

sizes in grades 4 through 6 exceeded 29 students per teacher.

Page | 29


As shown in the following chart, FCPS has made significant progress in reducing class size each

year. Since the 2014 - 2015 school year, the number of classes with 30 or more students

decreased from 10 to 7, or by 30 percent, in grades 1 through 3 and decreased from 138 to 57, or

59 percent, in grades 4 through 6. In addition, the number of classes in grades 1 through 3 with

28 or 29 students decreased from 132 to 48, or by 64 percent during the same time frame.

There are multiple factors that influence elementary class sizes, the most significant being the

distribution of students across each grade level. While class size recommendations are important,

the student body may not be easily broken into subsets to form ideal class configurations.

Other factors that drive elementary class sizes are:

State K-3 class size cap – schools with a high percentage of students that qualify for free

lunch have certain class size caps ranging from 19 to 24 students per class

Needs-based staffing

Special programming such as foreign language immersion and advanced academics

Limited building capacity – schools may not have room to accommodate extra classes

Teacher vacancies

Mini model vs. class size regulation priority

Regular monitoring by the region superintendents, Human Resources, and Financial Services is

occurring to ensure that staffing is adjusted as changes in enrollment occur throughout the school

year.

Page | 30


The staffing reserve is used to address class size needs when enrollment is lower than or

exceeds the projections used to allocate staffing, to meet unique needs, and to address large

elementary class sizes. Positions are returned to the staffing reserve when enrollment does not

meet projections.

The following table summarizes the activity in the staffing reserve as of November 2017:

In addition to recurring funds that support 441 positions in the staffing reserve, the FY 2018

Budget amount includes additional one-time funding of $1.7 million, or 20 positions. To help

address the demands on the staffing reserve in FY 2018, a total of 8 teacher positions were

converted to 16 instructional assistant positions. The recurring funding combined with the one-

time funding and the reallocation between teacher and instructional assistant positions, resulted

in a staffing reserve total of 469 available positions. To mitigate disruption to schools, those

elementary schools where the actual enrollment was within five students from qualifying for

another position were able to retain the additional position to meet potential growth throughout

the school year. As other needs arise, positions will continue to be allocated from the staffing

reserve.

CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING FORWARD

Building and maintaining a Premier Workforce is a recruitment to retirement effort. Based on the

data and past work of the Division, several initiatives are underway or in the development phase,

which build off of information presented earlier in the report. These programs and projects will

allow FCPS to continue to serve as a top tier employer, in addition to being an excellent provider

of instruction for students.

Staffing Reserve Balance as of November 2017

Positions Dollars

FY 2018 Budget 1/ 469.0 33,930,208$

Returned due to lower actual enrollment 92.5 5,936,419$

Allocated due to higher actual enrollment (262.9) (18,267,506)$

Allocated to address unique needs (129.6) (8,288,343)$

Allocated to address class size requirements (169.0) (13,310,778)$

Remaining as of November 0.0 -$

1/ Includes one-time funding of 20.0 pos i tions and a rea l ignment between teachers and instructional ass is tant pos i tions

Page | 31


Recruitment

The recruitment of talented and dedicated educators and staff is the starting point for the

development of a Premier Workforce. Recruitment provides FCPS an opportunity to market itself

to interested individuals and attract new employees to the workforce. Over the last two years,

FCPS has worked diligently to expand, enhance, and modernize recruitment efforts.

As was articulated under the “Number of qualified applicants per advertised position” metric,

FCPS has started to reshape the recruitment and hiring process. The recruitment and hiring

windows have been accelerated to provide administrators earlier access to teacher talent. Based

on the data captured after this past recruitment season, the movement of the window has been a

success; however, simply moving the recruitment window is not enough to continue cultivating a

premier workforce for the Division. With the national teacher shortage crisis, FCPS must build on

the momentum that has been created over the last two years and continue to push forward with

innovative recruitment strategies.

A main component of FCPS recruitment is university and college educator fairs. During the spring

of 2017, FCPS attended 62 events. This is an increase of 6 events over 2016 and 18 more

events than the Division attended in 2014. In spring 2018, FCPS will participate in 77 such

events. These recruitment visits are becoming more targeted through a strategic recruitment

approach that focuses on FCPS planning trips to schools that it believes can fill a specific staffing

need. For example, a university with a strong special education program could be added to the

recruitment calendar to help address the need for special education teachers and a standard

general recruitment event removed.

In addition to rethinking where FCPS recruits, the school system has changed who it sends to

recruit. Building relationships is key to strong recruitment. In the spring of 2017, FCPS piloted

sending recruiters to events where the recruiter had a preexisting relationship with the college or

university. The recruiter may have been a student in the school’s college of education or assisted

the university’s student teaching program. Pairing a recruiter with a school where a relationship

exists enhances the Division’s standing at the event and will increase the likelihood that the

university will steer students toward FCPS when they are deciding on employment options.

However, university and college recruitment does not just happen at hiring fairs. To assist FCPS

in being more competitive, FCPS will send individuals to college and university campuses at other

times of the year to assist with mock interviews, student teacher panels and other professional

activities as a way to build and nurture relationships with these institutions in preparation for later

recruitment events.

Beyond sending principals to hiring events, FCPS will begin utilizing teachers as recruiters during

the 2018 hiring season. Candidates are more likely to be interested in an employee with whom

Page | 32


they can identify or feel they may have shared experiences. New teachers that can share recent

experiences of being a first or second year teacher with a perspective hire can instantly help

formulate relationships that cement the recruitment and hiring process. Utilizing millennials to

recruit other millennials can propel FCPS in hiring the next great generation of Fairfax County

Public Schools teachers.

Other significant enhancements being made to recruitment practices include:

Identify mediums to advertise FCPS vacancies more broadly to target diverse communities

(e.g., HBC.com, Diversity Ed Magazine)

Implement use of onsite hiring metric to increase employment offers at recruitment events

Growth of social media presence to market FCPS job opportunities and recalibrate materials

to meet the expectations of today’s teaching candidates

Three FCPS sponsored hiring fairs: February, May, July

The number of hiring fairs hosted by FCPS is an increase over past years, and these events

provide applicants and schools more opportunities to find a good match and make an instant hire.

During the 2018 hiring season, FCPS will expand the use of “on the spot” offers at internal hiring

fairs as well as at recruitment events as a way of attracting individuals into FCPS earlier in the

process. This approach is bolstered by the “early hire” signing bonus that the Division introduced

in spring 2017.

While this bonus for individuals who committed to FCPS early in the process aided in the actual

hiring, it was also a significant recruitment tool as word spread throughout the region that FCPS

was offering a hiring incentive. During the 2017 hiring season, FCPS offered 195 $2,000

incentives and 85 $1,000 incentives. The differential in hiring incentive was based on when the

individual was offered and accepted a position during the season.

FCPS has intensified efforts for recruiting a diverse workforce. More than 21% of the 2017

recruitment events that FCPS attended were held at Historically Black Colleges and Universities

(HBCU), Hispanic-serving institutions (HIS) and Asian American Native American Pacific Islander

Serving Institutions (AANAPISI). In 2018, this percentage will increase to 52%. In addition, the

Division conducted a second recruitment trip to Puerto Rico, and has begun establishing a

permanent relationship with educators in Puerto Rico. The commitment to diversity through the

recruitment and hiring process will continue for the Division. Additional initiatives that are

underway include:

Page | 33


Partnering with universities to encourage minority students to choose teaching as a

profession (ex. met with undeclared students at Howard University to discuss merits of

teaching career with expansion planned in future years)

Expanding FCPS Teachers for Tomorrow program to include two additional schools with

high populations of minority students, with more schools added in future years

Engaging local community and service-based organizations to market our employment

opportunities and seek their support in building workforce diversity (e.g., sorority and

fraternity events, NOVA Chamber of Commerce)

Offering guarantees of employment for bilingual and/or minority high school students

from the Division who return qualified to teach

The FCPS workforce should reflect the diversity of the students being served. While discussed

under the “Staff diversity trends”, the Division has seen an increase in diversity hiring, which is

fostered in part by the enhanced recruitment efforts:

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

White (Hired) 1,684 81.91% 1,325 77.76% 1,582 77.44% 1,435 75.61% 1,377 74.80%

Candidates of Color (Hired) 372 18.09% 379 22.24% 461 22.56% 463 24.39% 464 25.20%

While the Division has enjoyed some success through these recruitment efforts, the data shows

that additional work should be done with regard to diversity recruitment.

Hiring

Through a review of current hiring practices, the division has recognized a need to enhance and

systematize hiring protocols. These efforts will benefit all employee groups but are being initiated

with a focus on teachers. The goal of the revised hiring practices is to build, implement, and

facilitate an application and hiring system that ensures equity and consistency of

practices across all schools and departments in FCPS. Performance metrics will be

established to monitor the success of this work.

This initiative began in summer 2017 and is slated for full implementation in spring 2018 prior to

the beginning of the hiring season. A tentative timeline for the work includes:

April 1: New process and system goes live

Jan 1 – March 31: Training for Principals, Hiring Managers, TAM and others

Jan 22: Work session with the School Board

Dec 4 – Dec 22: Finalize new procedures / systems

Nov 1 – Dec 2: Workshop proposed changes w/ constituent groups

Sept 20 – Nov 3: Develop new procedures and systems

Page | 34


While there are many facets to this work, there are two main components: 1. central applicant

tracking system and 2. hiring protocols. Improvements to the applicant tracking system will

increase efficiency and ease of use for hiring managers and staffing specialist when searching for

and communicating with candidates in the applicant pool. It will improve tracking of available

candidates and provide better access for hiring managers to all available candidates.

Improvements to the hiring protocols will embed a systematic hiring approach within all schools,

departments, and offices in the Division. By taking a divisionwide approach and requiring similar

practices by all hiring managers, FCPS will have a more fair, equitable, and transparent hiring

process. During the development phase, an outside partner reviewed and analyzed the new

protocols to ensure that FCPS is using HR industry best practices and that the new approach

meets the stated goal of the project: build, implement, and facilitate an application and hiring

system that ensures equity and consistency of practices across all schools and departments in

FCPS.

As a companion to the new teacher hiring practices, FCPS is also introducing a new principal

pool approach for the hiring of school principals. Individuals interested in the principalship will

apply to a general pool during two application windows each year. The three tier pool selection

process will generate a collection of candidates who will then be eligible to apply for specific

principal vacancies. The pool approach is based on best practices from school systems around

the nation and built partially on research and work conducted by the Wallace Foundation. The

goals of the new approach are to increase the depth of perspective principal, provide more equal

opportunity to openings across FCPS, and increase the diversity of the principal cadre. The first

application window opened in the fall of 2017, with over 90 applicants applying to the pool. A

second window opened in January 2018 and the pool will be fully utilized to fill principal vacancies

during the spring 2018 hiring cycle.

Retention

Recruitment and hiring are only two pieces of what is required to create and maintain a Premier

Workforce. Retention of high quality staff is a key factor in the sustained success of FCPS. Data

related to retention was presented under metrics “Level of satisfaction with employment

experience”, “Retention Rates for teachers at critical years”, and “Percentage of employees rated

as highly effective on performance evaluations”. Projects, programs, and initiatives to assist with

retention, as well as collect better data, are underway or in development.

To assist with better retention, the Division must understand why individuals are leaving FCPS.

Collecting feedback when (and before) employees exit can be a significant benefit. Although

Page | 35


efforts have been made to enhance the exit survey, work continues on strengthening the actual

instrument and expanding the way FCPS collects exit data. The 2016 Virginia General Assembly

passed Senate Bill 360 that directed VDOE to create an exit survey to be used across the State.

FCPS is participating as a pilot Division for this project during the 2017 – 2018 school year. In

addition to this work with the State, HR is collaborating with school based administrators to collect

qualitative data to supplement the quantitative data gained through surveys. Revisions to the

paperwork that must be submitted when an individual separates from FCPS are also being

explored as a way to make the collection of this information more efficient and effective.

While work-life balance is important for all employees, it is critical that FCPS have effective

teachers in classrooms every day. A review of leave utilization and sub request reveals that the

Division is seeing an increase in use of leave by employees. On average, teachers are using 8.8

days of leave per year. The increase in leave requests has outpaced the system’s ability to find

adequate substitute teachers. Although FCPS placed more substitutes in classrooms during the

2016 – 2017 school year than during the previous year, the significant increase in leave utilization

resulted in a lower substitute fill rate because supply could not keep pace with demand.

Total TeachersTotal Teachers

Using Leave

Percentage of

Teachers Reporting

Leave

Average Personal

Leave Days per

Teacher

Average Sick Leave

Days per Teacher

Nov 2012 - Oct 2013 15,750 13,045 82.80% 1.7 7

Nov 2013 - Oct 2014 15,521 13,325 85.90% 1.6 6.1

Nov 2014 - Oct 2015 15,549 12,873 82.80% 1.5 6.1

Nov 2015 - Oct 2016 15,691 12,957 82.60% 2.4 6.3

Nov 2016 - Oct 2017 15,752 13,298 84.40% 2.9 5.9

Total EmployeesTotal Employees

Using Leave

Percentage of

Employees

Reporting Leave

Average Leave

Days per

Employee*

Average Sick Leave

Days per Employee

Nov 2012 - Oct 2013 11,794 10,184 86.35% 6.0 8.1

Nov 2013 - Oct 2014 11,590 10,201 88.02% 6.2 7.4

Nov 2014 - Oct 2015 11,564 10,261 88.73% 5.9 7.4

Nov 2015 - Oct 2016 11,774 10,144 86.16% 6.7 7.6

Nov 2016 - Oct 2017 11,882 10,240 86.18% 6.8 7.2

Total EmployeesTotal Employees

Using Leave

Percentage of

Employees

Reporting Leave

Average Leave

Days per

Employee*

Average Sick Leave

Days per Employee

Nov 2012 - Oct 2013 669 544 81.32% 7.6 6.4

Nov 2013 - Oct 2014 663 555 83.71% 8.7 6

Nov 2014 - Oct 2015 670 585 87.31% 8.2 6.3

Nov 2015 - Oct 2016 675 577 85.48% 9.8 6

Nov 2016 - Oct 2017 677 567 83.75% 9.7 6.1

Teacher Leave Use

Support Employee Leave Use

School-Based Administrator Leave Use

*Annual or Personal Leave

*Annual or Personal Leave

Page | 36


As a result of this trend, FCPS is reviewing and updating leave regulations. In addition,

requirements for documentation will be clarified. FCPS will also reexamine the pay structure for

substitutes and review potential modifications that will help attract individuals to these important

roles throughout the school year.

To foster continual employee growth, FCPS must have a vigorous and effective evaluation model.

While the system boasts meet/exceeds percentages in the high 90s for teachers and

administrators, it needs to ensure that the evaluation tool does not deteriorate into a “check-the-

box” exercise that fails to provide utility for the employee or the administrator.

Several years ago the Division developed a new evaluation system for use by teachers and

administrators. While an improvement over previous models, it is time for FCPS to reexamine its

evaluation practices. Between February and August 2018, a team will collaborate to redesign the

Division’s evaluation process and tools. These efforts will address instructional and support staff

evaluation methods. This work is accompanied by a current RFP for an updated online tracking

system that will support a better process. The goal is a robust evaluation system that is not only

Page | 37


effective but also efficient, allowing for an evaluation process that provides continual growth but

does not detract from the main goal of educating children on a daily basis.

In Close

Exceptional employees are what make FCPS successful for students as well as a tremendous

place to work. The work of Goal 3 supports all FCPS employees. With the plan outlined in Goal

3, FCPS is positioned to recruit, retain, and develop a premier workforce that will serve as a

catalyst for the success of Portrait of a Graduate. As with all work in the Division, Goal 3 is not

successful in a silo. It is tightly aligned with the other goals of the Strategic Plan and is effectively

executed to carry out the mission and vision of FCPS.

Page | 38


REFERENCES

Albert Shanker Institute (2015). The State of Teacher Diversity.

Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? CPRE Research Report # R-03-4.

Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Ingersoll, R. & May, H. (2011). Recruitment, Retention and the Minority Teacher Shortage. CPRE

Report. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

NCES (2017). National Center for Education Statistics https://nces.ed.gov

Partee, G. (2014). Retaining Teachers of Color in Our Public Schools. Center for American Progress.

Perda, D. (2013). Transitions into and out of teaching: A longitudinal analysis of early career teacher

turnover (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Sutcher, Darling-Hammond, and Carver-Thomas (2016). A Coming Crisis in Teaching? Teacher

Supply, Demand, and Shortages in the U.S. Learning Policy Institute:

https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/coming-crisis-

teaching?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Coming%20Crisis%3F&ut

m_campaign=UA-67199435-1

Teacher Talent Toolbox -TNTP retrieved from: http://tntp.org/teacher-talent-toolbox/explore/hiring

http://www.cpre.org/recruitment-retention-and-minority-teacher-shortage

https://nces.ed.gov/

https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/coming-crisis-teaching?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Coming%20Crisis%3F&utm_campaign=UA-67199435-1



http://tntp.org/teacher-talent-toolbox/explore/hiring

Page | 39


APPENDIX

Appendix A: Demographic Comparisons

Workforce Diversity

September 30, 2017

Total

Minority Black

Hispanic

or Latino

American

Indian or

Alaskan

Native Asian

Pacific

Islander

Two or

more

races White



Teachers 19.3% 7.3% 4.4% 0.2% 5.2% 0.0% 2.2% 80.7%

September 30, 2016

Total

Minority Black

Hispanic

or Latino

American

Indian or

Alaskan

Native Asian

Pacific

Islander

Two or

more

races White



Teachers 18.3% 7.1% 4.2% 0.1% 4.9% 0.0% 1.9% 81.7%

September 30, 2015

Total

Minority Black

Hispanic

or Latino

American

Indian or

Alaskan

Native Asian

Pacific

Islander

Two or

more

races White



Teachers 17.4% 7.0% 4.0% 0.1% 4.5% 0.0% 1.8% 82.6%

September 30, 2014

Total

Minority Black

Hispanic

or Latino

American

Indian or

Alaskan

Native Asian

Pacific

Islander

Two or

more

races White



Teachers 16.8% 7.0% 3.8% 0.1% 4.3% 0.0% 1.6% 83.2%

Page | 40


Appendix B: Administrators and Support Staff Applicant Hiring Data

School Based Administrators - Race

School Based Administrators - Gender

School-Based Administrator Data 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

School-Based Administrator Applicants (July 1-June 30) 1,236 847 1,064 1,180 1,246

Qualified Applicants 930 684 946 1,012 1,082

Total Hired for School Year 69 62 57 65 74

White (Total Applicants) 595 48.14% 433 51.12% 568 53.38% 626 53.05% 659 52.89%

White (Qualified Applicants) 485 52.15% 372 54.39% 524 55.39% 559 55.24% 588 54.34%

White (Hired) 50 72.46% 49 79.03% 47 82.46% 45 69.23% 56 75.68%

Black (Total Applicants) 447 36.17% 278 32.82% 336 31.58% 375 31.78% 401 32.18%

Black (Qualified Applicants) 321 34.52% 213 31.14% 287 30.34% 322 31.82% 346 31.98%

Black (Hired) 11 15.94% 11 17.74% 4 7.02% 16 24.62% 12 16.22%

Hispanic (Total Applicants) 44 3.56% 33 3.90% 41 3.85% 41 3.47% 41 3.29%

Hispanic (Qualified Applicants) 29 3.12% 26 3.80% 33 3.49% 26 2.57% 34 3.14%

Hispanic (Hired) 2 2.90% 1 1.61% 3 5.26% - 0.00% 3 4.05%

American Indian (Total Applicants) 3 0.24% 3 0.35% 2 0.19% 2 0.17% 1 0.08%

American Indian (Qualified Applicants) 1 0.11% 3 0.44% 2 0.21% 2 0.20% - 0.00%

American Indian (Hired) - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00% 1 1.54% - 0.00%

Asian (Total Applicants) 31 2.51% 18 2.13% 27 2.54% 29 2.46% 36 2.89%

Asian (Qualified Applicants) 19 2.04% 14 2.05% 23 2.43% 21 2.08% 24 2.22%

Asian (Hired) 4 5.80% 1 1.61% 2 3.51% 2 3.08% 3 4.05%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (Total Applicants) - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00% 1 0.08%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (Qualified Applicants) - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (Hired) - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00%

Two or More Races (Total Applicants) 36 2.91% 33 3.90% 36 3.38% 41 3.47% 51 4.09%

Two or More Races (Qualified Applicants) 20 2.15% 21 3.07% 31 3.28% 28 2.77% 42 3.88%

Two or More Races (Hired) 2 2.90% - 0.00% 1 1.75% 1 1.54% - 0.00%

Race Not Given (Total Applicants) 80 6.47% 49 5.79% 54 5.08% 66 5.59% 56 4.49%

Race Not Given (Qualified Applicants) 55 5.91% 35 5.12% 46 4.86% 54 5.34% 48 4.44%

Race Not Given (Hired) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

White (Total Applicants) 595 48.14% 433 51.12% 568 53.38% 626 53.05% 659 52.89%

Candidates of Color (Total Applicants) 561 45.39% 365 43.09% 442 41.54% 488 41.36% 531 42.62%

White (Qualified Appicants) 485 52.15% 372 54.39% 524 55.39% 559 55.24% 588 54.34%

Candidates of Color (Qualified Applicants) 390 41.94% 277 40.50% 376 39.75% 399 39.43% 446 41.22%

White (Hired) 50 72.46% 49 79.03% 47 82.46% 45 69.23% 56 75.68%


2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

School-Based Administrator Applicants (July 1-June 30) 1,236 847 1,064 1,180 1,246

Qualified Applicants 930 684 946 1,012 1,082

Total Hired for School Year 69 62 57 65 74

Male (Total Applicants) 470 38.03% 328 38.72% 407 38.25% 419 35.51% 452 36.28%

Male (Qualified Applicants) 381 40.97% 273 39.91% 369 39.01% 365 36.07% 404 37.34%

Male (Hired) 18 26.09% 29 46.77% 32 56.14% 24 36.92% 28 37.84%

Female (Total Applicants) 744 60.19% 506 59.74% 640 60.15% 742 62.88% 773 62.04%

Female (Qualified Applicants) 537 57.74% 401 58.63% 562 59.41% 632 62.45% 661 61.09%

Female (Hired) 51 73.91% 33 53.23% 25 43.86% 41 63.08% 46 62.16%



Page | 41


Support Staff - Race

Support Staff – Gender

Support Data 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Support Applicants (July 1-June 30) 23,248 16,970 13,685 18,338 16,156


Total Hired for School Year 933 928 868 965 1,023

White (Total Applicants) 8,733 37.56% 6,558 38.64% 5,482 40.06% 6,698 36.53% 5,988 37.06%

White (Qualified Applicants) 7,253 39.08% 5,362 40.04% 4,670 41.06% 5,351 37.16% 4,771 37.83%

White (Hired) 523 56.06% 522 56.25% 442 50.92% 496 51.40% 460 44.97%

Black (Total Applicants) 6,156 26.48% 4,436 26.14% 3,114 22.75% 4,797 26.16% 3,856 23.87%

Black (Qualified Applicants) 4,693 25.28% 3,336 24.91% 2,515 22.11% 3,720 25.84% 2,952 23.41%

Black (Hired) 120 12.86% 145 15.63% 141 16.24% 165 17.10% 183 17.89%

Hispanic (Total Applicants) 3,098 13.33% 2,453 14.45% 2,156 15.75% 2,738 14.93% 2,458 15.21%

Hispanic (Qualified Applicants) 2,429 13.09% 1,881 14.04% 1,812 15.93% 2,169 15.06% 1,943 15.41%

Hispanic (Hired) 133 14.26% 106 11.42% 139 16.01% 144 14.92% 176 17.20%

American Indian (Total Applicants) 66 0.28% 39 0.23% 24 0.18% 37 0.20% 36 0.22%

American Indian (Qualified Applicants) 54 0.29% 31 0.23% 16 0.14% 33 0.23% 27 0.21%

American Indian (Hired) 3 0.32% 1 0.11% - 0.00% 1 0.10% - 0.00%

Asian (Total Applicants) 2,942 12.65% 1,910 11.26% 1,647 12.04% 2,285 12.46% 2,233 13.82%

Asian (Qualified Applicants) 2,331 12.56% 1,519 11.34% 1,329 11.69% 1,755 12.19% 1,732 13.73%

Asian (Hired) 130 13.93% 125 13.47% 117 13.48% 117 12.12% 159 15.54%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (Total Applicants) 54 0.23% 36 0.21% 29 0.21% 37 0.20% 40 0.25%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (Qualified Applicants) 46 0.25% 28 0.21% 25 0.22% 31 0.22% 31 0.25%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (Hired) - 0.00% 2 0.22% 5 0.58% - 0.00% 4 0.39%

Two or More Races (Total Applicants) 953 4.10% 719 4.24% 527 3.85% 827 4.51% 707 4.38%

Two or More Races (Qualified Applicants) 740 3.99% 560 4.18% 419 3.68% 624 4.33% 530 4.20%

Two or More Races (Hired) 24 2.57% 27 2.91% 24 2.76% 41 4.25% 41 4.01%

Race Not Given (Total Applicants) 1,246 5.36% 819 4.83% 706 5.16% 919 5.01% 838 5.19%

Race Not Given (Qualified Applicants) 1,015 5.47% 676 5.05% 587 5.16% 716 4.97% 626 4.96%

Race Not Given (Hired) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

White (Total Applicants) 8,733 37.56% 6,558 38.64% 5,482 40.06% 6,698 36.53% 5,988 37.06%

Candidates of Color (Total Applicants) 13,269 57.08% 9,593 56.53% 7,497 54.78% 10,721 58.46% 9,330 57.75%

White (Qualified Appicants) 7,253 39.08% 5,362 40.04% 4,670 41.06% 5,351 37.16% 4,771 37.83%

Candidates of Color (Qualified Applicants) 10,293 55.45% 7,355 54.92% 6,116 53.78% 8,332 57.87% 7,215 57.21%

White (Hired) 523 56.06% 522 56.25% 442 50.92% 496 51.40% 460 44.97%


2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Support Applicants (July 1-June 30) 23,248 16,970 13,685 18,338 16,156


Total Hired for School Year 933 928 868 965 1,023

Male (Total Applicants) 7,513 32.32% 6,058 35.70% 4,457 32.57% 5,713 31.15% 4,893 30.29%

Male (Qualified Applicants) 5,445 29.34% 4,505 33.64% 3,608 31.72% 4,267 29.63% 3,622 28.72%

Male (Hired) 273 29.26% 296 31.90% 293 33.76% 280 29.02% 295 28.84%

Female (Total Applicants) 15,373 66.13% 10,674 62.90% 9,026 65.96% 12,356 67.38% 11,039 68.33%

Female (Qualified Applicants) 12,824 69.09% 8,692 64.90% 7,607 66.89% 9,927 68.94% 8,817 69.91%

Female (Hired) 660 70.74% 632 68.10% 575 66.24% 685 70.98% 728 71.16%



Page | 42


Appendix C: Staffing Reserve Usage as of November 2017

REASON

FORMULA CLASS SIZE OTHER TOTAL

ALDRIN ELEM Assistant Principal 1.0 1.0

Teacher 1.4 1.0 2.4

Classroom Assistant 2.0 1.0 2.0 5.0

ANNANDALE HIGH Teacher (0.3) 0.2 (0.2)

ANNANDALE TERRACE ELEM Teacher (2.0) 1.0 (1.0)

Classroom Assistant (1.0) (1.0)

ARMSTRONG ELEM Teacher 1.4 2.0 3.4

Classroom Assistant 1.0 1.0

BAILEYS ELEM

Teacher 3.4 0.4 3.8


BAILEYS UPPER ELEM Teacher 0.0 0.0

BELLE VIEW ELEM Teacher 0.0 0.0


BELVEDERE ELEM Assistant Principal (1.0) (1.0)

Teacher 2.4 1.0 2.5 5.9


BONNIE BRAE ELEM Teacher 1.6 2.0 3.6


BRADDOCK ELEM Teacher 3.4 0.0 3.4


BREN MAR PARK ELEM Teacher (1.0) (1.0)


BROOKFIELD ELEM Teacher (1.0) (1.0)


BRYANT HIGH

Teacher 2.0 2.0

Page | 43


REASON


BUCKNELL ELEM Teacher 0.5 0.5

BULL RUN ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0 2.0

BURKE SCHOOL Teacher 2.0 2.0


BUSH HILL ELEM Teacher 0.2 0.2


CAMELOT ELEM Teacher 0.0 0.0


CAMERON ELEM Teacher 0.0 1.0 1.0


CANTERBURY WOODS ELEM Teacher 1.8 3.0 4.8


CARDINAL FOREST ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0

CARSON MIDDLE Teacher (0.5) 1.0 0.5


CEDAR LANE SCHOOL Teacher 1.0 1.0

CENTRE RIDGE ELEM Teacher (1.0) (1.0)

CENTREVILLE CTR-MOUNTAIN VIEW

Teacher 1.0 1.0

CENTREVILLE ELEM Classroom Assistant 0.0 0.0

CENTREVILLE HIGH Teacher 1.2 1.2


CHANTILLY HIGH

Teacher 0.3 0.7 1.0


CHERRY RUN ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0 2.0

Page | 44


REASON



CHESTERBROOK ELEM Teacher 0.0 1.0 1.0


CHURCHILL ROAD ELEM Teacher 1.4 2.0 3.4

Classroom Assistant 1.0 1.0 2.0

CLEARVIEW ELEM Teacher 0.0 1.0 (1.0) 0.0


CLERMONT ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0 2.0

Classroom Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0

COATES ELEM Teacher (2.0) (2.0)


COLIN POWELL ELEM Teacher 2.8 3.0 1.5 7.3


COLVIN RUN ELEM Teacher 0.6 3.0 3.6

Classroom Assistant (1.0) 1.0 0.0

COOPER MIDDLE Teacher 4.2 4.2

CROSSFIELD ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0 2.0


CUB RUN ELEM Teacher 2.4 1.0 3.4


CUNNINGHAM PARK ELEM Teacher (1.0) (1.0)

DANIELS RUN ELEM Teacher 0.0 0.5 0.5

DAVIS CENTER

Teacher 2.0 2.0


DEER PARK ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0


Page | 45


REASON


DOGWOOD ELEM Teacher (1.0) 1.0 0.0

DRANESVILLE ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0

EAGLE VIEW ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0 2.0


EDISON HIGH Teacher 1.2 1.2


FAIRFAX HIGH Classroom Assistant 1.0 1.0 2.0

FAIRFAX VILLA ELEM Classroom Assistant 1.0 1.0

FAIRHILL ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0


FAIRVIEW ELEM Teacher 2.4 2.0 4.4


FALLS CHURCH HIGH Teacher 6.5 0.3 6.8


FLINT HILL ELEM Teacher 0.0 2.0 2.0


FLORIS ELEM Teacher 2.6 2.0 1.0 5.6


FOREST EDGE ELEM Teacher (1.0) 2.0 1.0


FORESTDALE ELEM Teacher (1.0) (1.0)


FORESTVILLE ELEM Teacher 1.8 3.0 0.5 5.3


School-based Tech Specialist 0.5 0.5

FORT BELVOIR PRIMARY ELEM

Page | 46


REASON


Teacher (2.0) 0.5 (1.5)


FORT BELVOIR UPPER ELEM Teacher 0.0 0.0


FORT HUNT ELEM Teacher (1.0) 1.0 0.5 0.5


FOX MILL ELEM Teacher 1.6 2.5 4.1


FRANCONIA ELEM Teacher 2.6 2.0 0.5 5.1


FRANKLIN MIDDLE Teacher (1.0) (1.0)


FRANKLIN SHERMAN ELEM Teacher 1.6 3.0 4.6

FREEDOM HILL ELEM Teacher (3.0) (3.0)


FROST MIDDLE Teacher (0.3) 1.0 0.7


GARFIELD ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0


GLASGOW MIDDLE Teacher (1.8) 2.2 0.3


GLEN FOREST ELEM Teacher (2.0) 0.8 (1.3)


GRAHAM ROAD ELEM

Teacher 1.0 1.0


GREAT FALLS ELEM Teacher 0.4 2.5 0.5 3.4


Page | 47


REASON



GREENBRIAR EAST ELEM Teacher 0.0 0.0


GREENBRIAR WEST ELEM Teacher 0.6 3.0 3.6

GROVETON ELEM Teacher 0.0 0.0


GUNSTON ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0 2.0


HALLEY ELEM Teacher (1.0) (1.0)


HAYCOCK ELEM Teacher 2.6 3.0 5.6

HAYFIELD ELEM Teacher 1.4 1.0 2.4


HAYFIELD SECONDARY Teacher 0.5 0.5

HERNDON ELEM Teacher (2.0) (2.0)


HERNDON HIGH Teacher 2.5 1.0 3.5

HERNDON MIDDLE Teacher 1.0 1.0


HOLLIN MEADOWS ELEM Teacher 0.0 0.0


HUGHES MIDDLE Teacher 0.3 0.3

HUNT VALLEY ELEM Teacher 0.0 1.0 1.0

HUNTERS WOODS ELEM Teacher 3.0 4.0 7.0

HYBLA VALLEY ELEM

Page | 48


REASON


Teacher 1.0 1.0 2.0


IRVING MIDDLE Teacher 1.7 1.7


ISLAND CREEK ELEM Teacher 1.6 2.0 2.0 5.6


JEFFERSON TECH HIGH Teacher (1.2) (1.2)

KEENE MILL ELEM Teacher 0.4 3.0 3.4

KENT GARDENS ELEM Teacher 3.4 1.0 4.4


KEY CENTER Teacher (3.0) (3.0)


KEY MIDDLE

Teacher (0.8) (0.8)

KILMER CENTER Classroom Assistant 1.0 1.0

KILMER MIDDLE Teacher (0.8) 1.2 0.3


KINGS GLEN ELEM

Teacher 2.4 0.5 2.9


KINGS PARK ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0


LAKE ANNE ELEM Teacher (2.0) 1.0 (1.0)


LAKE BRADDOCK SECONDARY Teacher (1.3) 1.7 0.3


LANE ELEM Teacher 0.0 1.5 1.5


Page | 49


REASON


LANGLEY HIGH Teacher 2.2 0.7 1.5


LANIER MIDDLE

Teacher (0.2) 1.0 0.8

LAUREL HILL ELEM Teacher 1.4 2.0 3.4

LAUREL RIDGE ELEM Teacher .04 2.0 1.0 3.4


LEE HIGH Assistant Principal 1.0 1.0

Teacher (1.0) 3.5 2.5

LEES CORNER ELEM

Assistant Principal 1.0 1.0

Teacher 1.0 1.0 2.0


LEMON ROAD ELEM Teacher 1.8 3.0 4.8

LIBERTY MIDDLE Teacher (1.2) 1.0 (0.2)


LITTLE RUN ELEM

Teacher (1.0) (1.0)


LONDON TOWNE ELEM

Teacher 0.0 0.0


LONGFELLOW MIDDLE

Assistant Principal 1.0 1.0

Teacher 1.8 1.8

LORTON STATION ELEM Teacher (2.0) 1.0 (1.0)

LOUISE ARCHER ELEM

Teacher (0.6) 4.0 3.4

LUTHER JACKSON MIDDLE

Teacher (1.0) 2.5 1.5


LYNBROOK ELEM

Teacher 0.0 0.0

Page | 50


REASON



MADISON HIGH Teacher 1.0 1.0


MANTUA ELEM Teacher 3.2 5.0 1.0 9.2

MARSHALL HIGH Teacher 2.8 2.8

MARSHALL ROAD ELEM Teacher 0.0 0.0


MASON CREST ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.5 2.5


MCLEAN HIGH Teacher 4.2 4.2


MCNAIR ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0


MOSBY WOODS ELEM Teacher 1.0 0.5 1.5

MOUNT EAGLE ELEM Teacher 0.0 1.0 1.0

MOUNT VERNON HIGH Teacher 1.0 1.0 2.0


MOUNT VERNON WOODS ELEM Assistant Principal 1.0 1.0

Teacher 1.0 1.0 2.0

NAVY ELEM Teacher 2.6 3.0 5.6


NORTH SPRINGFIELD ELEM Teacher 3.6 1.0 4.6


OAK HILL ELEM Teacher 1.6 4.0 5.6


OAK VIEW ELEM

Page | 51


REASON


Teacher 0.0 1.0 1.0


OAKTON ELEM Teacher 0.6 3.0 3.6

OAKTON HIGH Teacher 4.0 4.0

OLDE CREEK ELEM Teacher 0.0 0.0

ORANGE HUNT ELEM Teacher 5.8 1.0 6.8


PARKLAWN ELEM Teacher 3.4 1.5 4.9


PINE SPRING ELEM Teacher 1.0 1.0

POE MIDDLE

Teacher 0.8 0.8


POPLAR TREE ELEM Teacher 0.0 2.0 2.0


PROVIDENCE ELEM Teacher 0.0 0.0

PULLEY CENTER Teacher 3.0 3.0


QUANDER ROAD SCHOOL Classroom Assistant 1.0 1.0

RAVENSWORTH ELEM Teacher 1.6 3.0 4.6


RIVERSIDE ELEM Teacher 0.0 1.0 1.0

ROBINSON SECONDARY Teacher 0.0 0.7 0.7


ROCKY RUN MIDDLE Teacher 2.7 0.7 3.3

ROLLING VALLEY ELEM

Page | 52


REASON


Teacher 1.4 1.0 0.5 2.9


ROSE HILL ELEM Teacher (1.0) 1.0 0.5 0.5

Classroom Assistant (1.0) 1.0 1.0 1.0

SANDBURG MIDDLE Teacher 2.5 1.0 3.5


SANGSTER ELEM Teacher 0.4 4.0 4.4


SARATOGA ELEM Teacher (1.0) 1.0 0.0


SHREVEWOOD ELEM Teacher 1.4 1.0 1.0 3.4


SILVERBROOK ELEM

Teacher 0.6 3.0 1.0 4.6


SLEEPY HOLLOW ELEM Teacher (1.0) (1.0)


SOUTH COUNTY HIGH Teacher 2.0 2.0

SOUTH COUNTY MIDDLE Teacher 1.0 1.0


SOUTH LAKES HIGH Teacher 0.3 0.3

SPRING HILL ELEM Teacher 1.6 2.0 3.6


SPRINGFIELD ESTATES ELEM Teacher 5.8 1.0 6.8


STENWOOD ELEM Teacher 0.6 3.0 3.6

STONE MIDDLE Teacher (0.2) 0.3 0.1

Page | 53


REASON



STRATFORD LANDING ELEM Teacher (1.0) 1.0 0.5 0.5


STUART HIGH Teacher (0.3) (0.3)

SUNRISE VALLEY ELEM Teacher 0.6 3.0 3.6


TERRA-CENTRE ELEM

Teacher 4.0 3.0 7.0


TERRASET ELEM

Teacher 1.0 1.5 2.5


THOREAU MIDDLE

Teacher 2.2 1.0 3.2


TIMBER LANE ELEM

Teacher 3.4 0.5 3.9


TWAIN MIDDLE

Teacher (1.0) (1.0)


UNION MILL ELEM

Teacher 0.4 2.0 2.4

VIENNA ELEM

Teacher 1.6 3.0 4.6

VIRGINIA RUN ELEM

Teacher 1.0 0.5 1.5

WAKEFIELD FOREST ELEM

Teacher 1.6 2.0 3.6


WAPLES MILL ELEM

Teacher 1.0 2.0 3.0


WASHINGTON MILL ELEM

Teacher (1.0) (1.0)


WAYNEWOOD ELEM

Page | 54


REASON


Teacher 0.0 1.0 1.0

WEST POTOMAC HIGH

Teacher 0.5 0.5

WEST SPRINGFIELD ELEM

Teacher 0.0 2.0 2.0


WEST SPRINGFIELD HIGH

Teacher 3.3 1.0 4.3

WESTBRIAR ELEM

Teacher 4.0 3.0 7.0


WESTFIELD HIGH

Teacher 1.2 1.0 2.2

WESTGATE ELEM

Teacher 2.8 1.0 1.5 5.3


WESTLAWN ELEM

Teacher (2.0) (2.0)


WEYANOKE ELEM

Teacher (3.0) 1.0 (2.0)


WHITE OAKS ELEM

Teacher (0.6) 4.0 1.0 4.4


WHITMAN MIDDLE

Teacher 1.5 0.5 2.0

WILLOW OAKS

Teacher 4.0 4.0

WILLOW SPRINGS ELEM

Teacher 2.8 3.0 5.8


WOLFTRAP ELEM

Teacher 1.6 3.0 4.6

WOODLAWN ELEM

Teacher (1.0) (1.0)


WOODLEY HILLS ELEM

Teacher (1.0) (1.0)


Page | 55


REASON


WOODSON HIGH

Teacher (1.5) 0.4 (1.1)

Grand Total 170.4 169.0 129.6 469.0

Page | 56


Appendix D: Elementary Class Size as of September 2017

By Grade Group, Region, State K-3 Designation

Grade Group Region

K3 Cap School Name

Below 20

K 20 to 28; Grades 1-3 20 to 27;

Grades 4-6 20 to 29

1-3 28-29

K 29+ 1-6 30+

Grand Total

K 1 22 DOGWOOD ELEMENTARY* 3 2 5

HUTCHISON ELEMENTARY* 2 5 7

24 CLEARVIEW ELEMENTARY* 3 1 4

DRANESVILLE ELEMENTARY* 4 4

FOREST EDGE ELEMENTARY* 1 2 3

HERNDON ELEMENTARY* 1 5 6

LAKE ANNE ELEMENTARY* 4 4

N/A ALDRIN ELEMENTARY 4 4

ARCHER ELEMENTARY 3 3

ARMSTRONG ELEMENTARY 2 2

CHURCHILL ROAD ELEMENTARY 3 3

COLVIN RUN ELEMENTARY 3 3

CROSSFIELD ELEMENTARY 3 3

CUNNINGHAM PARK ELEMENTARY 1 2 3

FLINT HILL ELEMENTARY 4 4

FORESTVILLE ELEMENTARY 1 3 4

FOX MILL ELEMENTARY 3 3

GREAT FALLS ELEMENTARY 3 3

HUNTERS WOODS ELEMENTARY 4 4

MARSHALL ROAD ELEMENTARY 5 5

MOSBY WOODS ELEMENTARY 5 5

NAVY ELEMENTARY 4 4

OAKTON ELEMENTARY 5 5

SPRING HILL ELEMENTARY 5 5

SUNRISE VALLEY ELEMENTARY 2 2

TERRASET ELEMENTARY 3 3

VIENNA ELEMENTARY 3 3

WAPLES MILL ELEMENTARY 5 5

WOLFTRAP ELEMENTARY 3 3

2 21 GRAHAM ROAD ELEMENTARY* 3 3

WEYANOKE ELEMENTARY* 5 5

22 ANNANDALE TERRACE ELEMENTARY* 3 1 4

BAILEYS ELEMENTARY* 1 10 11

Page | 57


Grade Group Region

K3 Cap School Name

Below 20

K 20 to 28; Grades 1-3 20 to 27;

Grades 4-6 20 to 29

1-3 28-29

K 29+ 1-6 30+

Grand Total

BRADDOCK ELEMENTARY* 1 5 6

GLEN FOREST ELEMENTARY* 8 8

23 BEECH TREE ELEMENTARY* 1 2 3

BREN MAR PARK ELEMENTARY* 4 4

PARKLAWN ELEMENTARY* 5 5

PINE SPRING ELEMENTARY* 4 4

SLEEPY HOLLOW ELEMENTARY* 3 3

WESTLAWN ELEMENTARY* 6 6

WOODBURN ELEMENTARY* 4 4

24 BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY* 1 3 4

MASON CREST ELEMENTARY* 4 4

NORTH SPRINGFIELD ELEMENTARY* 3 1 4

TIMBER LANE ELEMENTARY* 4 4

N/A CAMELOT ELEMENTARY 1 3 4

CHESTERBROOK ELEMENTARY 4 4

COLUMBIA ELEMENTARY 3 3

FAIRHILL ELEMENTARY 4 4

FREEDOM HILL ELEMENTARY 1 3 4

HAYCOCK ELEMENTARY 4 4

KENT GARDENS ELEMENTARY 4 4

LEMON ROAD ELEMENTARY 3 3

SHERMAN ELEMENTARY 2 1 3

SHREVEWOOD ELEMENTARY 5 5

STENWOOD ELEMENTARY 3 3

WESTBRIAR ELEMENTARY 4 4

WESTGATE ELEMENTARY 4 4

3 19 HYBLA VALLEY ELEMENTARY* 8 8

20 LYNBROOK ELEMENTARY* 5 5

21 MOUNT EAGLE ELEMENTARY* 3 3

MOUNT VERNON WOODS ELEMENTARY* 2 3 5

22 BUCKNELL ELEMENTARY* 2 2

CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY* 4 4

GROVETON ELEMENTARY* 5 5

WOODLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY* 4 4

23 CAMERON ELEMENTARY* 3 1 4

RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY* 6 6

WASHINGTON MILL ELEMENTARY* 4 4

Page | 58


Grade Group Region

K3 Cap School Name

Below 20

K 20 to 28; Grades 1-3 20 to 27;

Grades 4-6 20 to 29

1-3 28-29

K 29+ 1-6 30+

Grand Total

24 FORESTDALE ELEMENTARY* 3 3

GARFIELD ELEMENTARY* 2 1 3

HOLLIN MEADOWS ELEMENTARY* 5 5

LORTON STATION ELEMENTARY* 3 2 5

ROSE HILL ELEMENTARY* 3 2 5

SARATOGA ELEMENTARY* 4 4

WOODLAWN ELEMENTARY* 3 3

N/A BELLE VIEW ELEMENTARY 4 4

BUSH HILL ELEMENTARY 3 3

CLERMONT ELEMENTARY 4 4

FORT BELVOIR PRIMARY SCHOOL 9 9

FORT HUNT ELEMENTARY 3 3

FRANCONIA ELEMENTARY 4 4

GUNSTON ELEMENTARY 2 2

HAYFIELD ELEMENTARY 5 5

ISLAND CREEK ELEMENTARY 5 5

LANE ELEMENTARY 4 4

SPRINGFIELD ESTATES ELEMENTARY 3 3

STRATFORD LANDING ELEMENTARY 3 3

WAYNEWOOD ELEMENTARY 1 3 4

4 N/A BONNIE BRAE ELEMENTARY 5 5

BULL RUN ELEMENTARY 4 4

CARDINAL FOREST ELEMENTARY 3 3

CENTRE RIDGE ELEMENTARY 3 3 6

CENTREVILLE ELEMENTARY 4 4

CHERRY RUN ELEMENTARY 3 3

FAIRVIEW ELEMENTARY 4 4

HALLEY ELEMENTARY 3 3

HUNT VALLEY ELEMENTARY 1 3 4

KEENE MILL ELEMENTARY 3 3

KINGS PARK ELEMENTARY 7 7

LAUREL HILL ELEMENTARY 4 4

LAUREL RIDGE ELEMENTARY 3 2 5

NEWINGTON FOREST ELEMENTARY 3 3

OAK VIEW ELEMENTARY 4 4

ORANGE HUNT ELEMENTARY 5 5

Page | 59


Grade Group Region

K3 Cap School Name

Below 20

K 20 to 28; Grades 1-3 20 to 27;

Grades 4-6 20 to 29

1-3 28-29

K 29+ 1-6 30+

Grand Total

POWELL ELEMENTARY 5 5

RAVENSWORTH ELEMENTARY 3 3

ROLLING VALLEY ELEMENTARY 4 4

SANGSTER ELEMENTARY 3 3

SILVERBROOK ELEMENTARY 4 4

TERRA CENTRE ELEMENTARY 4 4

UNION MILL ELEMENTARY 5 5

WEST SPRINGFIELD ELEMENTARY 3 3

WHITE OAKS ELEMENTARY 3 3

5 24 BROOKFIELD ELEMENTARY* 1 5 6

COATES ELEMENTARY* 6 6

LONDON TOWNE ELEMENTARY* 6 6

N/A CANTERBURY WOODS ELEMENTARY 3 3

CUB RUN ELEMENTARY 3 3

DANIELS RUN ELEMENTARY 5 5

DEER PARK ELEMENTARY 4 4

EAGLE VIEW ELEMENTARY 3 3

FAIRFAX VILLA ELEMENTARY 4 4

FLORIS ELEMENTARY 4 4

GREENBRIAR EAST ELEMENTARY 1 4 5

GREENBRIAR WEST ELEMENTARY 4 4

LEES CORNER ELEMENTARY 4 4

LITTLE RUN ELEMENTARY 2 2

MANTUA ELEMENTARY 4 4

MCNAIR ELEMENTARY 8 8

OAK HILL ELEMENTARY 3 3

OLDE CREEK ELEMENTARY 1 1 2

POPLAR TREE ELEMENTARY 1 2 3

PROVIDENCE ELEMENTARY 6 6

VIRGINIA RUN ELEMENTARY 4 4

WAKEFIELD FOREST ELEMENTARY 4 4

WILLOW SPRINGS ELEMENTARY 4 4

K Total 111 461 572

1-3 1 22 DOGWOOD ELEMENTARY* 10 5 15


Page | 60


Grade Group Region

K3 Cap School Name

Below 20

K 20 to 28; Grades 1-3 20 to 27;

Grades 4-6 20 to 29

1-3 28-29

K 29+ 1-6 30+

Grand Total

24 CLEARVIEW ELEMENTARY* 6 7 13

DRANESVILLE ELEMENTARY* 2 12 14



LAKE ANNE ELEMENTARY* 12 12

N/A ALDRIN ELEMENTARY 10 3 13

ARCHER ELEMENTARY 1 10 11

ARMSTRONG ELEMENTARY 1 5 2 8


COLVIN RUN ELEMENTARY 13 1 14

CROSSFIELD ELEMENTARY 7 2 9

CUNNINGHAM PARK ELEMENTARY 9 9


FORESTVILLE ELEMENTARY 2 8 10

FOX MILL ELEMENTARY 2 10 12

GREAT FALLS ELEMENTARY 3 5 1 1 10

HUNTERS WOODS ELEMENTARY 14 14

MARSHALL ROAD ELEMENTARY 14 14

MOSBY WOODS ELEMENTARY 16 16

NAVY ELEMENTARY 14 2 16

OAKTON ELEMENTARY 15 15

SPRING HILL ELEMENTARY 17 17


TERRASET ELEMENTARY 11 11

VIENNA ELEMENTARY 1 9 10


WOLFTRAP ELEMENTARY 7 3 10

2 21 GRAHAM ROAD ELEMENTARY* 12 12

WEYANOKE ELEMENTARY* 12 1 13

22 ANNANDALE TERRACE ELEMENTARY* 17 17

BAILEYS ELEMENTARY* 12 10 22

BAILEYS UPPER ELEMENTARY* 6 5 11


GLEN FOREST ELEMENTARY* 26 1 27

23 BEECH TREE ELEMENTARY* 6 3 9

BREN MAR PARK ELEMENTARY* 11 2 13

Page | 61


Grade Group Region

K3 Cap School Name

Below 20

K 20 to 28; Grades 1-3 20 to 27;

Grades 4-6 20 to 29

1-3 28-29

K 29+ 1-6 30+

Grand Total

PARKLAWN ELEMENTARY* 5 10 15

PINE SPRING ELEMENTARY* 4 7 11

SLEEPY HOLLOW ELEMENTARY* 7 4 11

WESTLAWN ELEMENTARY* 9 8 17

WOODBURN ELEMENTARY* 3 8 11

24 BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY* 6 8 14

MASON CREST ELEMENTARY* 2 11 13

NORTH SPRINGFIELD ELEMENTARY* 2 8 10

TIMBER LANE ELEMENTARY* 2 9 11

N/A CAMELOT ELEMENTARY 11 11

CHESTERBROOK ELEMENTARY 12 12

COLUMBIA ELEMENTARY 2 9 11

FAIRHILL ELEMENTARY 1 10 11

FREEDOM HILL ELEMENTARY 2 8 1 11

HAYCOCK ELEMENTARY 1 15 16


LEMON ROAD ELEMENTARY 10 10


SHREVEWOOD ELEMENTARY 1 10 3 14

STENWOOD ELEMENTARY 1 9 2 12


WESTGATE ELEMENTARY 2 10 12


20 LYNBROOK ELEMENTARY* 15 15

21 MOUNT EAGLE ELEMENTARY* 6 3 9


22 BUCKNELL ELEMENTARY* 6 6

CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY* 6 7 13

GROVETON ELEMENTARY* 9 8 17

WOODLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY* 5 7 12

23 CAMERON ELEMENTARY* 10 10

RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY* 6 10 16

WASHINGTON MILL ELEMENTARY* 3 9 12

24 FORESTDALE ELEMENTARY* 10 10

GARFIELD ELEMENTARY* 7 1 8

HOLLIN MEADOWS ELEMENTARY*

13

13

Page | 62


Grade Group Region

K3 Cap School Name

Below 20

K 20 to 28; Grades 1-3 20 to 27;

Grades 4-6 20 to 29

1-3 28-29

K 29+ 1-6 30+

Grand Total

LORTON STATION ELEMENTARY*

10

7

17


SARATOGA ELEMENTARY* 8 5 13

WOODLAWN ELEMENTARY* 1 9 10

N/A BELLE VIEW ELEMENTARY 10 10

BUSH HILL ELEMENTARY 3 6 9

CLERMONT ELEMENTARY 8 3 11

FORT BELVOIR PRIMARY SCHOOL 27 27

FORT HUNT ELEMENTARY 5 8 13

FRANCONIA ELEMENTARY 5 6 11

GUNSTON ELEMENTARY 1 8 9

HAYFIELD ELEMENTARY 5 8 13


LANE ELEMENTARY 14 14

SPRINGFIELD ESTATES ELEMENTARY 9 2 11

STRATFORD LANDING ELEMENTARY 1 8 2 11

WAYNEWOOD ELEMENTARY 14 14

4 N/A BONNIE BRAE ELEMENTARY 12 1 13

BULL RUN ELEMENTARY 1 13 14

CARDINAL FOREST ELEMENTARY 10 1 11

CENTRE RIDGE ELEMENTARY 14 14

CENTREVILLE ELEMENTARY 1 12 13

CHERRY RUN ELEMENTARY 3 2 1 6

FAIRVIEW ELEMENTARY 1 11 12


HUNT VALLEY ELEMENTARY 1 12 13

KEENE MILL ELEMENTARY 1 12 13

KINGS PARK ELEMENTARY 20 20

LAUREL HILL ELEMENTARY 13 1 14

LAUREL RIDGE ELEMENTARY 1 13 14


OAK VIEW ELEMENTARY 13 1 14

ORANGE HUNT ELEMENTARY 17 17

POWELL ELEMENTARY 1 16 17

RAVENSWORTH ELEMENTARY

2

10

12

Page | 63


Grade Group Region

K3 Cap School Name

Below 20

K 20 to 28; Grades 1-3 20 to 27;

Grades 4-6 20 to 29

1-3 28-29

K 29+ 1-6 30+

Grand Total

ROLLING VALLEY ELEMENTARY

11

11

SANGSTER ELEMENTARY 15 15

SILVERBROOK ELEMENTARY 1 14 15




WHITE OAKS ELEMENTARY 1 14 15

5 24 BROOKFIELD ELEMENTARY* 10 7 17

COATES ELEMENTARY* 6 9 15

LONDON TOWNE ELEMENTARY* 11 7 18

N/A CANTERBURY WOODS ELEMENTARY 9 2 11

CUB RUN ELEMENTARY 6 3 9



EAGLE VIEW ELEMENTARY 12 12

FAIRFAX VILLA ELEMENTARY 10 1 11

FLORIS ELEMENTARY 13 1 14

GREENBRIAR EAST ELEMENTARY 14 3 17


LEES CORNER ELEMENTARY 13 13

LITTLE RUN ELEMENTARY 1 5 6

MANTUA ELEMENTARY 18 18

MCNAIR ELEMENTARY 21 2 23


OLDE CREEK ELEMENTARY 6 6

POPLAR TREE ELEMENTARY 10 10

PROVIDENCE ELEMENTARY 17 17

VIRGINIA RUN ELEMENTARY 12 12



1-3 Total 397 1,373 48 7 1,825

4-6 1 22 DOGWOOD ELEMENTARY* 12 12


24 CLEARVIEW ELEMENTARY* 1 11 1 13

DRANESVILLE ELEMENTARY* 12 12

Page | 64


Grade Group Region

K3 Cap School Name

Below 20

K 20 to 28; Grades 1-3 20 to 27;

Grades 4-6 20 to 29

1-3 28-29

K 29+ 1-6 30+

Grand Total



LAKE ANNE ELEMENTARY* 10 3 13

N/A ALDRIN ELEMENTARY 10 10

ARCHER ELEMENTARY 15 15

ARMSTRONG ELEMENTARY 3 6 9


COLVIN RUN ELEMENTARY 14 1 15

CROSSFIELD ELEMENTARY 13 13

CUNNINGHAM PARK ELEMENTARY 8 8


FORESTVILLE ELEMENTARY 11 11

FOX MILL ELEMENTARY 8 4 12

GREAT FALLS ELEMENTARY 5 5 1 11

HUNTERS WOODS ELEMENTARY 2 14 2 18

MARSHALL ROAD ELEMENTARY 1 11 12

MOSBY WOODS ELEMENTARY 2 10 8 20

NAVY ELEMENTARY 12 5 17

OAKTON ELEMENTARY 13 1 14

SPRING HILL ELEMENTARY 1 15 2 18


TERRASET ELEMENTARY 1 9 10

VIENNA ELEMENTARY 8 8


WOLFTRAP ELEMENTARY 10 10

2 21 GRAHAM ROAD ELEMENTARY* 3 5 8

WEYANOKE ELEMENTARY* 7 7

22 ANNANDALE TERRACE ELEMENTARY* 9 9

BAILEYS UPPER ELEMENTARY* 1 15 1 17


GLEN FOREST ELEMENTARY* 15 15

23 BEECH TREE ELEMENTARY* 6 6

BREN MAR PARK ELEMENTARY* 7 7

PARKLAWN ELEMENTARY* 10 10

PINE SPRING ELEMENTARY*

3

6

9

Page | 65


Grade Group Region

K3 Cap School Name

Below 20

K 20 to 28; Grades 1-3 20 to 27;

Grades 4-6 20 to 29

1-3 28-29

K 29+ 1-6 30+

Grand Total

SLEEPY HOLLOW ELEMENTARY*

2

4

6

WESTLAWN ELEMENTARY* 15 15

WOODBURN ELEMENTARY* 3 6 9

24 BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY* 1 10 1 12

MASON CREST ELEMENTARY* 4 4 8

NORTH SPRINGFIELD ELEMENTARY* 6 6

TIMBER LANE ELEMENTARY* 1 9 10

N/A CAMELOT ELEMENTARY 11 11

CHESTERBROOK ELEMENTARY 10 1 11

COLUMBIA ELEMENTARY 7 7

FAIRHILL ELEMENTARY 8 8

FREEDOM HILL ELEMENTARY 9 9

HAYCOCK ELEMENTARY 18 1 19


LEMON ROAD ELEMENTARY 2 11 13


SHREVEWOOD ELEMENTARY 11 1 12

STENWOOD ELEMENTARY 9 9


WESTGATE ELEMENTARY 7 1 8


20 LYNBROOK ELEMENTARY* 1 10 11

21 MOUNT EAGLE ELEMENTARY* 4 5 9


22 BUCKNELL ELEMENTARY* 4 2 6

CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY* 12 12

GROVETON ELEMENTARY* 9 7 16

WOODLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY* 12 12

23 CAMERON ELEMENTARY* 2 7 9

RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY* 3 12 15

WASHINGTON MILL ELEMENTARY* 4 7 11

24 FORESTDALE ELEMENTARY* 5 5 10

GARFIELD ELEMENTARY* 6 6

HOLLIN MEADOWS ELEMENTARY* 6 4 10

LORTON STATION ELEMENTARY* 5 13 1 19


Page | 66


Grade Group Region

K3 Cap School Name

Below 20

K 20 to 28; Grades 1-3 20 to 27;

Grades 4-6 20 to 29

1-3 28-29

K 29+ 1-6 30+

Grand Total

SARATOGA ELEMENTARY* 6 7 13

WOODLAWN ELEMENTARY* 3 7 10

N/A BELLE VIEW ELEMENTARY 1 8 9

BUSH HILL ELEMENTARY 7 7

CLERMONT ELEMENTARY 6 3 9

FORT BELVOIR UPPER SCHOOL 21 1 22

FORT HUNT ELEMENTARY 2 8 10

FRANCONIA ELEMENTARY 9 9

GUNSTON ELEMENTARY 1 9 10

HAYFIELD ELEMENTARY 12 12


LANE ELEMENTARY 12 12

SPRINGFIELD ESTATES ELEMENTARY 21 21

STRATFORD LANDING ELEMENTARY 17 17

WAYNEWOOD ELEMENTARY 12 12

4 N/A BONNIE BRAE ELEMENTARY 11 1 12

BULL RUN ELEMENTARY 1 12 3 16

CARDINAL FOREST ELEMENTARY 11 11

CENTRE RIDGE ELEMENTARY 14 14

CENTREVILLE ELEMENTARY 16 16

CHERRY RUN ELEMENTARY 1 6 7

FAIRVIEW ELEMENTARY 10 1 11


HUNT VALLEY ELEMENTARY 11 11

KEENE MILL ELEMENTARY 14 2 16

KINGS GLEN ELEMENTARY 19 19

LAUREL HILL ELEMENTARY 16 2 18

LAUREL RIDGE ELEMENTARY 16 16


OAK VIEW ELEMENTARY 14 14

ORANGE HUNT ELEMENTARY 1 13 1 15

POWELL ELEMENTARY 1 14 1 16

RAVENSWORTH ELEMENTARY 8 1 9

ROLLING VALLEY ELEMENTARY 9 9

SANGSTER ELEMENTARY 21 1 22

SILVERBROOK ELEMENTARY 15 15

Page | 67


Grade Group Region

K3 Cap School Name

Below 20

K 20 to 28; Grades 1-3 20 to 27;

Grades 4-6 20 to 29

1-3 28-29

K 29+ 1-6 30+

Grand Total




WHITE OAKS ELEMENTARY 19 19

5 24 BROOKFIELD ELEMENTARY* 15 15

COATES ELEMENTARY* 2 10 12

LONDON TOWNE ELEMENTARY* 4 10 1 15

N/A CANTERBURY WOODS ELEMENTARY 18 18

CUB RUN ELEMENTARY 10 10



EAGLE VIEW ELEMENTARY 1 10 11

FAIRFAX VILLA ELEMENTARY 9 9

FLORIS ELEMENTARY 13 13

GREENBRIAR EAST ELEMENTARY 15 15


LEES CORNER ELEMENTARY 12 1 13

LITTLE RUN ELEMENTARY 2 4 6

MANTUA ELEMENTARY 15 6 21

MCNAIR ELEMENTARY 19 1 20


OLDE CREEK ELEMENTARY 2 5 7

POPLAR TREE ELEMENTARY 16 16

PROVIDENCE ELEMENTARY 13 1 14

VIRGINIA RUN ELEMENTARY 1 11 12



4-6 Total 148 1,526 57 1,731

Grand Total 656 3,360 48 64 4,128

Documents

Goal 3 PREMIER WORKFORCE - George Mason …...and vetted for strategic compensation model design. In early spring 2016, employees were surveyed to gather opinions and preferences regarding