Planning for Growth FAQ

Q: Why is the district considering moving away from the current K–5 elementary model?

The district recognizes that the current K–5 elementary model is familiar and valued by many families, students, and staff. For many children, a K–5 school can feel like a true elementary home, with older and younger students sharing the same building, siblings sometimes attending together, and families building connections over several years.

The Planning for Growth process did not begin from the assumption that the K–5 model should be replaced. The question studied was whether the current four-school K–5 structure can continue to support projected enrollment growth, uneven housing impact, preschool needs, special education programming, staffing, transportation, and space constraints in a sustainable way.

The Working Group studied the Current Model as one of the modeled options. After reviewing the projected enrollment, space, program, staffing, transportation, and long-term sustainability implications, the Working Group removed the Current Model from further consideration because it would likely require repeated future adjustments, such as additional rezoning, program relocation, room repurposing, and continued pressure on staffing, scheduling, services, and student experience.

Q: Why not simply keep the K–5 model if many families prefer it?

Family preference matters, and the district understands why many families value the K–5 model. The strengths of that model have been recognized throughout this process.

At the same time, the Board has to consider whether the current structure can continue to meet the district’s responsibilities to all students as enrollment grows and program needs change. Long-term planning must account for enrollment projections, facility capacity, class size, preschool, special education, related services, transportation, staffing, finances, and the daily experience of students and staff.

The Intermediate School Model is being recommended because it provides the strongest balance of long-term sustainability, educational program quality, operational feasibility, responsible use of resources, and manageable transition compared with the alternatives studied. 

Q: Can the Board reevaluate the K–5 model and allow broader community input?

Community input will continue before any Board vote. Questions and input may be shared at community@warrentboe.org.

The district understands that many families value the current K–5 elementary model. That has been recognized throughout the Planning for Growth process.

The Working Group did not begin with only the three models that appeared in the final stage of analysis. Over the course of the process, the group reviewed more than 30 possible responses to enrollment growth, including boundary changes, grade-configuration options, program-placement options, scheduling and operational adjustments, transportation approaches, temporary or bridge-space strategies, and capital or construction-related options.

Those possibilities were narrowed over time into the models that appeared most viable for deeper analysis. The Current K–5 Model was one of the models studied in that final stage. After reviewing projected enrollment, space, program, staffing, transportation, and long-term sustainability implications, the Working Group removed the Current Model from further consideration.

The Board can consider public input before any vote. However, the district is not recommending that the Board continue the Current Model as the long-term plan.

Q: How would the student day-to-day experience be stronger under an Intermediate School Model?

The district understands that families will want to know what this would actually feel like for students, not only how the model works on paper.

For grades 4–5 students, the Intermediate School Model is intended to create a focused upper-elementary experience. Potential benefits include stronger grade-level collaboration among teachers, more consistent scheduling, more coherent intervention and enrichment structures, larger grade-level peer cohorts, age-appropriate leadership opportunities, and a more intentional bridge to Warren Middle School.

The K–3 experience also matters. Under the recommended model, the goal would be to create elementary schools focused on the early and primary grades, with schedules, supports, student services, literacy and math instruction, social-emotional learning, and school routines designed around younger learners. A K–3 structure may also help the district use classroom space, support services, and staffing more consistently across the primary grades.

At the same time, the district should not overstate the benefits before the educational design is complete. One of the next steps will be to define the day-to-day experience more clearly for both K–3 students and grades 4–5 students, including schedules, specials, intervention, enrichment, counseling, student leadership, school traditions, and transition supports. 

Q: Would grades 4–5 become like middle school? 

The Intermediate School Model would not simply turn grades 4–5 into a mini middle school.

Grades 4–5 students are still elementary students. Any intermediate school design would need to be developmentally appropriate for upper-elementary learners.

At the same time, a grades 4–5 school could help students build independence and confidence before middle school in age-appropriate ways. Examples could include more student leadership, greater grade-level collaboration, consistent routines, carefully designed schedules, and intentional transition preparation for Warren Middle School.

Q: Have other northern New Jersey districts used intermediate or upper-elementary models?

Yes, there are districts in New Jersey and the region that use intermediate, upper-elementary, or grade-banded structures.

However, the district should be careful not to overstate comparisons. Another district’s grade configuration does not automatically prove that the same structure is right for Warren. Districts differ in enrollment, geography, transportation, facilities, staffing, demographics, and community history.

The district is compiling a comparison list that will include district/school name, grade configuration, and a short note about comparability or limitations.

Q: Why hasn’t the community been informed about this until now? 

The district understands why some community members may feel that this information is new, especially if they were not able to attend Board meetings, follow community briefings, or review Planning for Growth materials during the year.

Planning for Growth has been a year-long public process. The district shared updates through Board of Education meetings, community communications, public presentations, meeting materials, and posted documents. The Working Group included parents, staff, community members, Board representatives, and municipal representation, and its work was documented through meeting summaries and public materials.

At the same time, the district recognizes that making information publicly available is not the same as ensuring that every family has seen it, understood it, or had time to process what it may mean for their children. The June 15 presentation brought the recommendation into sharper focus for many families, and the district understands that this may be the first time some community members are engaging deeply with the issue.

That is one reason this FAQ has been created. The goal is to provide a clearer, easier-to-access resource, respond to questions raised by the community, and continue updating families and staff as additional analysis is completed before the anticipated September 28 Board vote.

Q: How long would the Intermediate School Model last?

No school organization model can be responsibly described as permanent. Enrollment, housing, program needs, state requirements, and student needs change over time.

The goal of the Intermediate School Model is to create a more sustainable structure than the Current Model under known growth projections and stress-test scenarios. Before September 28, the district will be able to explain the expected planning horizon and the conditions that would require further review in the future.

The district will also continue updating enrollment and housing information over time. Future planning will include indicators that tell the district when the model needs to be reviewed again. Examples could include enrollment exceeding updated projections, a school approaching space capacity, section counts exceeding class-size guidelines, new housing approvals changing enrollment assumptions, or program needs requiring more instructional or support space than the model can provide.

Q: What if enrollment exceeds the projections?

Enrollment projections are planning tools, not guarantees. The district does not treat them as exact predictions.

The Planning for Growth process included both projected enrollment growth and a Round 4 stress-test scenario. The purpose of the stress test was to ask whether models would still function if additional growth materializes beyond currently known development patterns.

The district will continue monitoring enrollment, housing development, birth data, student movement, and program needs. If conditions change, the district will need to update its planning assumptions.

The demographic study and enrollment projection materials are available here: Demographic Study & Enrollment Projections. 

Q: What does the recommendation do, and not do, to current class sizes? 

The recommendation is not to increase class sizes.

Planning for Growth modeling used the district’s current class-size assumptions. One reason structural models were studied is that class size alone is not a simple or desirable solution to space pressure.

The district’s current model becomes strained because enrollment growth affects not only homeroom counts, but also the availability of appropriate rooms for intervention, special education, preschool, related services, specials, and support programs.

The Intermediate School Model is intended to help the district use sections, staffing, and space more flexibly, but it does not eliminate the need to monitor class size carefully each year. 

Q: What transition supports would be provided for students?

Transition support will be a major part of planning.

If the Board approves a structural direction, the district would develop transition supports for students, families, and staff. These may include:

Student visits to new schools
Family orientation events
Meet-the-principal and meet-the-counselor opportunities
Videos or virtual tours
Buddy systems or student ambassadors
Counselor lessons and classroom activities
Staff collaboration across sending and receiving schools
Specialized transition planning for students with IEPs, 504 plans, or other individual needs

Q: What about families with siblings in different schools?

The district understands that moving away from a four-school K–5 structure may create new family logistics for some families.

Families may have children in more than one school. This can affect transportation, pickup and drop-off, school events, aftercare, PTO participation, family routines, and sibling experiences.

The district takes these concerns seriously, and they will be part of transportation, scheduling, transition, and implementation planning. 

The district will need to study sibling transportation scenarios, event scheduling, start and end times, aftercare implications, and ways to support families with children in multiple schools.

Q: What about students who may have already experienced multiple school moves?

This is an important concern raised after the June 15 presentation.

Some students and families may have experienced more disruption than others because enrollment growth and prior rezoning impacts have not been evenly distributed. The district must study transition impacts carefully before any Board vote.

The district cannot promise a particular transition approach until those transition scenarios are analyzed. Any approach must be evaluated for its effect on capacity, staffing, transportation, program placement, and equity across the district. 

Q: How will the district maintain mentorship between older and younger students?

The district recognizes that cross-age mentorship is a valued part of the K–5 experience. An Intermediate School Model would change some of the natural daily interactions between younger and older elementary students.

If the model is approved, the district should intentionally design new forms of connection between K–3 students and grades 4–5 students.

Examples could include:

Reading buddies
Student ambassador visits
Grade 4–5 leadership activities with K–3 classrooms
Shared service projects
Buddy classrooms
Joint school spirit activities
Transition events
Older-student participation in age-appropriate elementary events

These ideas would need to be developed with principals, teachers, students, and families.

Q: Could schools still hold combined events so students and families remain connected?

Yes, this should be explored as part of implementation planning.

A new school structure would not have to eliminate districtwide or cross-school community. Some events may remain school-based, while others could be intentionally designed to bring K–3 and grades 4–5 students or families together.

The district would need to review calendars, transportation, supervision, space, event purpose, and staff/family capacity before determining which events should remain school-based and which could be combined.

Q: Have there been studies about the emotional and developmental impact of intermediate models? 

Research on grade configuration does not produce one universal answer that applies to every community. Student outcomes depend heavily on implementation, school culture, instructional quality, transition supports, leadership, peer relationships, family communication, and the developmental design of the program.

For that reason, the district’s planning will focus not only on the grade span itself, but also on how the transition would be supported and how the grades 4–5 student experience would be designed.

Q: How will special education program age breaks work under the new model?

Special program placement must be analyzed carefully before any final implementation plan is developed.

The district must ensure that students in special programs have appropriate access to age peers, general education curriculum, inclusion opportunities, related services, and IEP-driven supports.

Before a final implementation plan is developed, the district will need to review program age spans, inclusion opportunities with appropriate age peers, access to grade-level curriculum, related service locations, restroom and therapeutic space needs, transportation, staffing, case management, and student-specific needs reflected in IEPs.

This analysis will be part of the special programs and student services feasibility work before September 28.

Q: Is the district recommending preschool expansion?

No. The district is not recommending Preschool Expansion Aid or full preschool expansion as part of this Planning for Growth recommendation at this time.

The immediate preschool question is where the existing preschool program should be housed within the recommended structure.

The existing program is designed to meet state requirements and support an integrated special education preschool model. Preschool could remain in one location or be distributed across the K–3 schools. Each option has implications for staffing, related services, transportation, restroom access, student transitions, special education, and available K–3 space.

Q: Where would preschool be housed? 

This has not been decided.

One of the major remaining structural questions is whether preschool would be housed in one school or distributed across the three K–3 elementary schools.

A centralized preschool model may support collaboration, resource sharing, staffing efficiency, and related-service delivery. A distributed preschool model may support sibling transitions, peer learning, and access to preschool classrooms across more than one K–3 school.

The district must study both options carefully before making a recommendation. Factors include staffing, related services, transportation, restroom access, student transitions, special education, available K–3 space, and the ability to maintain program quality.

Q: Could additional busing solve the unevenness across schools?

Additional busing or revised routing may be part of implementing an approved model, but busing alone is not the recommended solution to the district’s growth and space challenges. Transportation changes do not create additional classrooms, resolve program-placement pressures, or address the long-term structural issues identified through Planning for Growth.

Q: What would transportation look like?

Transportation planning will focus on how the recommended structure can be implemented safely and responsibly. The district will need to review routing, tiers, ride times, start and end times, bus and driver availability, special education transportation, preschool transportation, supervision needs, and cost. The district understands that families will need to plan around any future changes, but final household routines, drop-off choices, and family schedules will vary by family.

Q: Is there an option to add onto schools instead of changing the structure?

The current recommendation does not rely on major construction as the first step. Additions, renovations, vertical expansion, new construction, and other capital strategies were considered during the broader process, but they are not the recommended immediate solution. Before September 28, the district will review what facility readiness is needed to operate the recommended structure responsibly, such as room assignments, furniture, technology, support spaces, traffic flow, and any minor setup needs.

Q: Could trailers or modular classrooms solve the problem?

Trailers or modular classrooms were considered as a possible temporary or bridge-space strategy, but they are not the recommended solution at this stage. Temporary space may add classrooms in the short term, but it does not address the broader structural issues related to uneven growth, program placement, staffing, transportation, related services, and long-term sustainability.

Q: What facility adjustments would be needed? 

Final facility adjustments have not been determined.

The next phase of planning must identify which school would serve as the grades 4–5 intermediate school, how K–3 students would be assigned, where preschool and special programs would be housed, and what current room uses would need to move, share space, or be reconfigured.

Facility readiness may include classroom setup, furniture, storage, technology, restroom access or waivers, support-service spaces, related-service locations, arrival/dismissal traffic flow, and one-time moving or setup costs.

The district is not currently recommending major construction, but some facility adjustments may be necessary to implement any approved structure responsibly.

Which school would serve as the grades 4–5 intermediate school?
Status: Under review before September 28.
Planned work: Facility, transportation, staffing, program placement, and transition-impact analysis.

Where would preschool be housed?
Status: Under review before September 28.
Planned work: Compare centralized and distributed preschool options.

How would K–3 students be assigned?
Status: Under review before September 28.
Planned work: Develop assignment concepts and assess transition impacts, equity, transportation, and capacity.

Several important implementation questions remain under review. These include:

• Which school would serve as the grades 4–5 intermediate school

• Whether preschool would be housed in one school or distributed across the K–3 schools

• The general K–3 student assignment approach

• Final transportation routes, schedules, or start times

• Final staffing, room-use, and program placement plans

• Student and family transition supports

• Facility adjustments, furniture, technology, and classroom setup

Some of these questions must be answered before a Board vote. Other details can only be finalized after the Board acts on a structural direction because they depend on the approved model, location decisions, staffing plans, transportation analysis, and transition plan.

Q: What was recommended on June 15?

The Board’s Ad Hoc Planning for Growth Committee recommended that the Board of Education move forward with the Intermediate School Model as the preferred structural direction for future planning.

Under this model, Warren Township Schools would operate:

Three K–3 elementary schools
One grades 4–5 intermediate school
Warren Middle School remaining grades 6–8

This recommendation identifies a preferred structural direction. It does not decide every implementation detail.

Q: Did the Board vote on this recommendation?

No. No final Board vote was taken on June 15.

The Board is currently targeting a September 28, 2026 vote on structural direction. The period between June 16 and September 28 is being used for additional readiness planning, public communication, and input before the Board considers action.

Q: Can parents or community members vote directly on the Planning for Growth recommendation? 

No. There is not a separate parent vote or community referendum for this type of school-organization decision. The Board of Education is the elected body responsible for considering and voting on district decisions of this kind at a public Board meeting.

Parents, staff, and community members can participate in the process by reviewing the public materials, submitting questions and input, attending Board meetings, speaking during public comment, and continuing to share concerns or suggestions as the district completes readiness planning before the anticipated September 28 vote.

Questions and input may be shared at community@warrentboe.org.

Q: What is changing for the 2026–2027 school year?

No school assignments, grade configurations, transportation routes, or staffing assignments are changing for the 2026–2027 school year as a result of the June 15 presentation.

The 2026–2027 school year will be used for planning, communication, analysis, and transition preparation if the Board approves a structural direction in September.

Q: What would the September 28 Board vote decide?

The September 28 vote is expected to focus on structural direction. In other words, the Board would decide whether the district should move forward with the recommended Intermediate School Model.

Before that vote, the district will provide enough information for the Board and community to understand the major planning assumptions, including:

Which school would serve as the grades 4–5 intermediate school
How preschool would be housed
The general K–3 student assignment concept
Transportation and schedule feasibility
Special program and student services feasibility
Preliminary staffing, financial, and facility readiness implications
What the vote would and would not decide

Q: What has not been decided yet?

Several important questions remain under review. These include:

Which school would serve as the grades 4–5 intermediate school
Whether preschool would be housed in one school or distributed across the K–3 schools
The general K–3 student assignment approach
Final transportation routes, schedules, or start times
Final staffing, room-use, and program placement plans
Student and family transition supports
Facility adjustments, furniture, technology, and classroom setup

Some of these questions must be answered before a Board vote. Others would be finalized during detailed implementation planning if the Board approves a structural direction.

Q: Is the decision already made? 

No final Board vote was taken on June 15, and the Board has not yet taken formal action on the recommendation.

At the same time, the district wants to be clear about the direction of the recommendation. The Current Model is not the recommended long-term path. The Planning for Growth process found that maintaining the current structure would likely require repeated future adjustments, such as additional rezoning, program relocation, room repurposing, and continued pressure on staffing, scheduling, services, and student experience.

The purpose of the current readiness period is not to restart the process from the beginning. It is to make sure the Board, staff, families, and community have clearer information about the recommended Intermediate School Model before the anticipated September 28 vote. Public questions and input will help identify issues that need to be answered, clarified, or planned for before that vote.

Q: Can the district wait another year before implementing any change?

The district understands why some families may ask whether implementation can be delayed. A delay could feel less disruptive for some students and families in the short term.

At the same time, the purpose of Planning for Growth is to avoid continuing a cycle of short-term fixes. The district is already experiencing space and program pressures, and enrollment growth is projected to continue. Waiting longer would not eliminate the underlying challenge. It would likely require the district to continue managing growth through temporary or reactive steps, such as additional room repurposing, program moves, staffing challenges, or future boundary adjustments.

For that reason, the district is currently targeting the 2027–2028 school year as the earliest implementation year if the Board approves a structural direction on September 28, 2026. The 2026–2027 school year would be used for readiness planning, communication, transition support, staffing, transportation analysis, and facility preparation.

The Board has not yet voted, but continued status quo beyond 2026–2027 is not the recommended long-term plan.