There are two grave problems with the draft Capacity Management Policy.
First, the direction from the Board is for the Superintendent to match capacity with enrollment. This is a bad idea. Capacity should not be matched to enrollment; it should be matched to demand. The difference becomes clear when the capacity is inadequate for certain programs. For example, if there are only 180 Spectrum seats at Washington Middle School and they are all full, but there are another 40 students who want to participate in the program, then capacity is perfectly matched to enrollment (180:180) but is poorly matched to demand (180:220). Similarly, if there are 450 seats in an alternative program and it is full with 200 students on the waitlist, then the capacity perfectly matches the enrollment (450:450), but it is poorly matched to demand (450:650). In each of these cases, good capacity managment would have the capacity of that program expanded to meet the demand rather than be limited to the current enrollment.
Capacity should be matched to DEMAND, not enrollment.
Second, I am deeply concerned that the proposed Capacity Management Policy gives the superintendent guidance from the Board to use program placement as a tool to manage capacity. This provides Board guidance to determine locations for programs based on space available. This is in direct contradiction to the intent and guidance given to the superintendent in the program placement policy, C56.00, which was intended to stop the practice of determining program placement based on space available. The Board should revise the draft policy either to remove the reference to program placement or add language to make it clear that capacity management factors should not drive program placement decisions.