Overall elementary enrollment is up because we instituted full day kindergarten. Dr. Chung’s enrollment projection of 304 kindergarteners was based on half day kindergarten. The actual enrollment of 347 would be expected as it approximates the 2011 first grade level. None of the enrollment increase is unexpected and this is why we needed 8.5 new teachers. We do not have more kids in the school system; we simply have them all one year earlier.

Can you explain what you mean? Kids still went to kindergarten before, just for fewer hours, so how does full-day kindergarten automatically raise enrollment? (I could very well be missing something.)

I can't speak for Ed. What I think he is saying that before FDK there was a percentage of students that opted to go to alternative kindergarten programs that were full day but returned to the Ridgefield schools for 1st grade. Now with FDK these kids are here "earlier". Now with FDK I would guess that the alternative programs have seen a corresponding decrease in their enrollments. .

Actually, we have about 1/3 of the kids we believe are from other programs who are now opting for a full day public program, about 1/3 are from people who have recently purchased houses in town and have younger children and the other 1/3 we can't pinpoint as yet. As for alternative programs, I would agree that they have probably seen a decrease in enrollment, I also know that a number of them have come up with some wonderfully innovative programs for the toddler crowd.

Dr. Chung’s main factor in his calculations are based on children born in Danbury & Norwalk hospital...I do not know if I can name more than 5 kids in my daughter'ds class that were even born in the state! There is the MAIN flaw!

A simple way to get a MINIMUM count of students attending the school for the next 5 years is to mail out a census to every household in Ridgefield. This would also be a lot more accurate than Dr. Chung's statistic for the past 2 years. Correct me if I am wrong but his numbers were off last September too!

I looked at all the June house sales and compared them to actual students enrolled in our schools. It is not 95% – 98%. Of the 55 sales, 31 of them have *NO* students in our schools. Of the 24 that do have students, three of those were Ridgefielders moving from one house to another. So, only 21 of the 55 were families moving into Town with September 2010 school children. That is 38%, not 98%. To put another myth to rest, the 55 house transfers included only four Kindergarteners. People with agendas are inventing reasons not to close a school.

I don't get it. Schools are unable to provide class list due to privacy reason, so how were you able to find out all this personal information regarding these 55 sales. Are you required to give this information when you sign sales papers?

The school my kids attend is almost at high capacity. This is my 6th year at this school and I don't remember ever having this many students. 2 grades are almost maxed out, plus ALL of our classroom are being used. In 1st grade alone there are a total of 10-13 more students than there were in 1st grade last year. Is there an easy explanation for that?

Kelly,

The enrollment at Veterans Park is not higher than when you first arrived.
2001 456
2002 476
2003 363
2004 350
2005 344
2006 346
2007 342
2008 337
2009 325
2010 344
This year’s enrollment is 27% lower than 2002, and 10% less than the first post-Bundle year of 2003, a year in which there was plenty of excess capacity. The problem is they have used the excess capacity for other things so they can convince parents, like you, that a school can’t be closed, and you have bought it as evidenced by, “The school my kids attend is almost at high capacity. This is my 6th year at this school and I don't remember ever having this many students.” The numbers above reveal that is simply untrue.

Ed
My first questions would be, when was Barlow opened and the schools were redistricted, could this have something to do with the huge drop of students between 2002 and 2003?
My first child entered VP in 2005 (not 2001)when the enrollment was 344, same as this year. Although you are correct about my mis-stating this is the highest enrollment while MY children have attended VP. In 2006 there were 346 students vs. 344 this year, a total of 2 students. Aren't we supposed to seeing a decline at this point?
This is perhaps the first post of mine that you have read because I do not have a problem with closing a school, BUT I want it to be done when the time is right. Isn't it worth looking at why enrollment went up by 19 students this year? Especially when at the K enrollment at VP didn't have any effect on that number at all? Where did these 19 students come from?
We have enrollment projections and this year they were wrong, isn't it worth waiting another year to see where the numbers fall?