Planning for Growth
Pre-Decision 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: 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, and members of the public may also participate through Board meetings and public comment.

The Planning for Growth process has already included formal analysis of the Current Model and more than 30 possible approaches. The district is not recommending the Current Model as the long-term plan, but public input can continue to identify questions, tradeoffs, and readiness issues that should be addressed before the anticipated September 28 vote.

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 proposed grades 4–5 school would be an upper-elementary school, not an expansion of Warren Middle School. Grades 4–5 students are still elementary students, and any design would need to be developmentally appropriate for upper-elementary learners.

A grades 4–5 school could help students build independence and confidence through age-appropriate leadership, grade-level collaboration, consistent routines, and intentional preparation for middle school. However, no specific schedule, teaching structure, event calendar, leadership opportunities, traditions, staffing assignments, or daily routines have been approved. The Board action anticipated in September would address structural direction, not those implementation details.

If the Board approves the model, the district would then work with staff, families, and students to design an age-appropriate grades 4–5 experience consistent with the Planning for Growth principles, including student belonging, peer relationships, educational quality, and the daily experience of students.

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: What has the district already done to manage enrollment growth, and why is more planning necessary? 

The district has already taken practical steps to manage enrollment growth and protect student programming.

In 2023–2024, the district adjusted elementary attendance zones to reduce pressure in the Central and Woodland areas. That rezoning was successful in providing short-term relief, but it was not intended to be a permanent solution to future growth.

The district has also made program-placement and space-use adjustments as student needs and enrollment have changed. Across the elementary schools, rooms that may appear available on a basic utilization chart are often already serving important purposes such as intervention, related services, speech, occupational therapy, multilingual learner support, enrichment, small-group instruction, counseling, or specialized programs.

These adjustments have helped the district respond responsibly to immediate needs. They also show why planning cannot be based only on the number of empty classrooms. The question is whether each building has the right kinds of spaces, in the right locations, to support students and programs over time.

Growth is not expected to affect every school in the same way. Current planning data show that Central has limited flexibility and that Woodland faces significant future pressure if remaining housing development occurs as projected. The district is planning now so that future adjustments are deliberate, student-centered, and sustainable rather than reactive.

Q: How did the district compare the disruption of maintaining K–5 with the disruption of moving to the Intermediate School Model? 

The district did not assume that maintaining K–5 would involve no disruption, nor did it conclude that the Intermediate School Model would avoid disruption. The comparison considered the timing, frequency, distribution, and likely effects of change under each model.

Maintaining four K–5 schools would be the most familiar and least disruptive option in the short term. It would preserve existing grade spans, allow siblings to remain together longer, and maintain current neighborhood-school relationships. Those are meaningful advantages of the Current Model.

However, the modeling showed that maintaining K–5 would increasingly require recurring adjustments as enrollment grows unevenly across the district. Those adjustments could include additional rezoning and student reassignments, relocation or sharing of spaces used for programs and services, increased pressure on class-size guidelines and sectioning, and changes affecting schedules, intervention, specials, preschool, and special education programming. Because growth is not evenly distributed, those effects would also continue to fall unevenly across schools and communities.

The structural room modeling illustrates the difference. Under the 2031 Round 3 planning condition, the Current Model retains a districtwide difference of 16 full-sized rooms between modeled requirements and available rooms, but Woodland is projected to have a building-level room deficit. Under the larger stress test, the districtwide difference falls to eight rooms and both Central and Woodland are projected to have deficits. A districtwide surplus does not resolve a deficit in an individual school.

The Intermediate School Model creates a more significant transition at the outset. It introduces an additional school transition after grade 3, reduces the number of years some siblings would attend the same school, changes transportation and family routines, and requires student, staff, program, and school-community transitions. Some students and communities that have experienced previous changes may feel that disruption more strongly. These are real disadvantages of the model.

At the same time, organizing grades 4–5 together and balancing K–3 enrollment across three schools creates greater usable capacity and reduces the likelihood of repeated structural adjustments. In the site-neutral structural modeling, the Intermediate School Model produces a districtwide difference of 26 full-sized rooms under the Round 3 planning condition and 16 rooms under the larger stress test, with no modeled site projected to have a full-sized-room deficit in either condition.

The comparison therefore was not between “change” and “no change.” It was between a larger, planned transition intended to establish a more sustainable structure and a familiar structure that would likely require repeated, uneven, and increasingly difficult adjustments over time. The Intermediate School Model was recommended because it provides greater flexibility to manage projected enrollment, class sizes, programs, and student services across the district—not because it eliminates disruption or is preferable for every family in every respect.

If the Board approves the model, reducing the effects of the transition through deliberate student, family, staff, and school-community planning will be a central part of implementation.

Q: If projected pressure is concentrated at Central and Woodland, why not use another boundary adjustment or a more localized solution instead of changing the elementary structure districtwide? 

This question was central to the Planning for Growth process. The District’s 2023–2024 rezoning successfully created short-term relief, but it did not create a permanent solution to projected growth, uneven enrollment pressure, or the need for appropriate space for preschool, special education, intervention, related services, specials, and support programs.

Another boundary adjustment could move students and relieve pressure in one area for a period of time. It would not create new classrooms or resolve the broader challenge of matching the right rooms, staffing, programs, and services to growing enrollment over time. It could also require another significant reassignment of students and families.

The District is still developing the K–3 assignment concept for the recommended model. That work will include enrollment balance, transportation, capacity, student transitions, family logistics, and long-term flexibility. No final boundaries or individual assignments have been determined.

*Updated* Q: What alternatives did the district consider, and how were they narrowed to the Intermediate School Model? 

The district did not begin the Planning for Growth process with a preferred school-organization model. The Working Group reviewed more than 30 possible strategies across five broad areas: grade configuration and student assignment, scheduling and instructional adjustments, program placement and service delivery, temporary or bridge space, and capital expansion.

These ideas ranged from additional rezoning, alternative grade bands, schedule and specials changes, and different preschool or special-program arrangements to modular classrooms, additions, renovations, and new construction. Not every strategy was a complete school-organization model or received detailed modeling. Some tactical or temporary strategies could still support implementation, but they did not provide a sufficient standalone response to the district’s long-term structural challenge.

The district ultimately compared three school-organization models in greater detail:

• • Current Model Optimized: Four K–5 schools

  • Intermediate School Model: Three K–3 schools and one grades 4–5 school

  • Parallel Banded Schools Model: Two K–2 schools and two grades 3–5 schools

The Working Group concluded that continued optimization of the Current Model was not a sustainable long-term response. The Intermediate School Model and Parallel Banded Schools Model both emerged as viable finalists with meaningful strengths and tradeoffs.

The Board’s Ad Hoc Planning for Growth Committee recommended the Intermediate School Model because it addresses the long-term structural challenge with less community-wide reorganization and a more manageable implementation path than the Parallel Banded Schools Model.

The Intermediate School Model remains a recommended structural direction, not final Board action. ALT is now the recommended grades 4–5 upper elementary-school location, and administration recommends centralized preschool at Mt. Horeb. The general K–3 assignment approach, transportation and school times, staffing and program planning, facility and resource implications, and transition supports remain under review or will continue into implementation planning. 

For additional information:

• Read the one-page summary: Alternatives Considered: A Summary of the School Organization Planning Process

• View the short visual summary

• Read the detailed overview: Alternatives Considered: From Broad Ideas to a Recommended Structural Direction

Q: Are other districts organized in a similar way?

Yes. Several New Jersey districts use a structure in which students attend PK/K–3 elementary schools, a grades 4–5 school, and then a grades 6–8 middle school. Examples with similar community profiles to Warren include Branchburg, Mahwah, Ramsey, and Readington. These examples provide context, but every district has different enrollment patterns, facilities, programs, transportation systems, and community needs. Warren’s recommendation is based on analysis of Warren Township Schools’ own projected growth, building capacity, student-program needs, transportation considerations, and long-term sustainability. 

Q: How are enrollment projections developed, including children who already live in Warren but are not yet school-aged or enrolled? 

The projections do not simply extend one historical growth rate into the future, nor do they rely on surveying every household. The demographic study uses current enrollment, live-birth and enrollment history, school-level cohort-survival patterns, and natural housing turnover. Cohort survival examines how the size of each group of students has historically changed as it moves from one grade to the next.

In this study, “natural growth” means the projected change before adding students from the remaining unbuilt Round 3 housing. It includes the enrollment effects of Round 3 housing that is already occupied, along with ordinary movement into and out of existing homes. The anticipated impact of remaining Round 3 developments is then added separately using projected unit counts, development timing, and student-yield assumptions.

Children who currently live in Warren but have not yet entered school are accounted for statistically through live-birth data and the district’s historical relationship between births and later kindergarten enrollment. No projection can identify every individual child or know with certainty whether a particular family will remain in Warren, enroll in public school, move into the community, or choose another educational option. That is why projections are planning estimates rather than exact counts.

The demographic study holds enrollment in the district’s existing preschool program steady as a simplifying assumption. This does not exclude today’s preschool-aged residents from future kindergarten projections. It means the model does not assume growth in the separate district preschool program, even though preschool participation and related space needs may increase. As a result, future preschool and special-program space pressure may be understated.

A voluntary household survey could supplement the demographic methodology by providing a snapshot of current resident intentions, but it would not replace it. Participation would be incomplete, family plans can change, and a survey would not capture future housing turnover or families who move into Warren later. The district will continue updating actual enrollment, registrations, housing occupancy, birth information, and student yields as new information becomes available. Material neighborhood-level information shared by residents can also be provided to the demographer as part of the district’s ongoing validation of assumptions.

*Updated* Q: Do recent questions about housing-development assumptions in the December 2025 demographic study change the need for Planning for Growth or the Intermediate School Model recommendation?

No. The district reviewed the specific concerns raised about several Round 3 and Round 4 developments with its demographer. The concerns appropriately reinforce the importance of continually validating housing assumptions as development plans, approvals, occupancy, and restrictions change. They do not, however, change the underlying need for Planning for Growth or the recommendation to move toward a more sustainable elementary structure.

The December 2025 Enrollment Projection and Utilization Study was based on the most current enrollment and housing information available when it was prepared. The study identifies Warren Township as the source of its Round 3 housing-status information and notes that the status of several developments could change. It also explains that actual enrollment effects will vary depending on when units become available and occupied.

One example raised recently involves Wagner Farm, which was included in the Round 3 table based on the housing information available at the time and was identified in the study as being in litigation. If the final use of a development or an applicable occupancy restriction means that it cannot generate school-aged children, future demographic updates will reflect that fact. Updating an assumption as better information becomes available is part of responsible demographic planning; it does not mean that the earlier study was unreasonable based on the information then available.

A separate question concerned whether students associated with a development that is now substantially occupied should still appear as projected housing growth. The December 2025 study necessarily predates the district’s actual 2026–2027 enrollment. The district tracks enrollment as students enter and leave throughout the year and uses its October 15 enrollment count for annual reporting to the New Jersey Department of Education. As developments become occupied, their impact becomes reflected in actual enrollment rather than remaining only a projection. Future demographic updates will incorporate those actual counts along with updated housing information. That distinction is important: projections are used to anticipate future enrollment, while actual enrollment replaces those estimates as students arrive and are counted.

Enrollment projections necessarily combine objective data with professional judgment. They use industry-standard methods such as cohort-survival analysis, live-birth data, actual enrollment, housing information, and historical student-yield patterns, but they also require assumptions about conditions that cannot be known with certainty in advance. For example, local real estate professionals have advised the district that housing turnover may increase as longtime homeowners sell and younger families move into existing homes. That type of turnover is difficult to predict precisely and could cause enrollment to be higher than projected in some areas, just as changes to particular development plans could cause enrollment to be lower than previously estimated elsewhere. The purpose of a demographic study is not to predict every future student exactly; it is to provide a reasonable planning estimate using the best information available and to update the analysis as actual conditions become known.

Some estimates will ultimately prove higher than actual experience and some lower. That is why the district relies on multiple data sources, updates actual enrollment annually, revisits housing information as it changes, and considers demographic projections as one part of a broader planning process rather than treating any single estimate as certain.

Most importantly, the Planning for Growth conclusion did not depend on every projected Round 3 student materializing exactly as estimated. The demographic work projected continued enrollment growth even without additional unbuilt Round 3 housing. Subsequent capacity analysis also showed that Central School faces significant space pressure even without additional Round 3 development, while Woodland faces additional pressure from remaining Round 3 growth. Later structural modeling found that, under the Current Model, Woodland requires action under the Round 3 planning condition and Central retains very limited flexibility.

Planning for Growth also was never based on enrollment totals alone. The district and Working Group evaluated school-organization models across multiple criteria, including building and room constraints, class-size and sectioning requirements, educational program quality, preschool and special education needs, transportation, staffing, student experience, distribution of impact across schools, financial implications, and long-term sustainability. The Working Group ultimately concluded that continuing to optimize the Current Model would likely require repeated future adjustments and unanimously declined to advance it for further analysis.

Questions about Round 4 housing require a different distinction. The December 2025 study explicitly described Round 4 information as early-stage and subject to change. The district subsequently updated the Round 4 assumptions when newer Township information became available. 

After the Township approved its Fair Share Housing Plan, the District rebuilt its Round 4 modeling using the updated Township development list and unit information. That update excluded age-restricted units from student-yield calculations and removed developments that were not part of the Township’s approved Fair Share Housing Plan. The resulting assumptions were then used only to stress-test the school-organization models. As an additional reasonableness check, the first of these developments now advancing to Planning Board review is proposed at 174 units, compared with the 176 units used in the District’s updated modeling. 

Throughout the Planning for Growth process, Round 4 has been treated as a stress test, not as a final enrollment projection and not as the reason the district determined structural change was necessary. Its purpose is to test whether a proposed school structure would remain workable if additional growth occurs. The Working Group materials continued to make that distinction explicitly when the Round 4 assumptions were updated.

The December 2025 study therefore was not used as a static or unchanged set of assumptions throughout the remainder of the Planning for Growth process. 

The district therefore takes the accuracy questions seriously and will continue correcting or updating housing assumptions as better information becomes available. After reviewing the concerns raised, however, the conclusion remains the same: the questioned housing assumptions do not change the need for a more sustainable elementary structure or the current Intermediate School Model recommendation.

*Updated* Q: How long would the Intermediate School Model last?

No school-organization model can responsibly be described as permanent. Enrollment, housing, student needs, programs, and state requirements will continue to change. Based on the structural modeling completed to date, however, the Intermediate School Model supports the district through the current five-year projection period ending in 2031 and remains workable under the larger Round 4 stress test.

The five-year projection horizon reflects an important limit of responsible school-demographic modeling. Kindergarten projections can be grounded in actual birth data only for children who have already been born. Beyond approximately five years, future kindergarten cohorts do not yet exist in the birth data, so longer-range estimates must rely increasingly on assumptions about future birth rates, migration, housing turnover, development, and family choices. Those estimates can be useful as planning scenarios or stress tests, but they cannot be presented with the same confidence as the five-year projection.

Under the 2031 planning condition—which includes natural growth and Round 3 housing—district enrollment is projected to reach 1,980 students. In the site-neutral structural modeling, the Intermediate School Model requires 84 of the 110 full-sized elementary rooms included in the analysis, a districtwide difference of 26 rooms between modeled requirements and available rooms. No modeled site has a full-sized-room deficit under that condition.

The district also tested the structure at 2,173 students by assuming full build-out of the more speculative Round 4 housing. Round 4 is a stress test, not a final enrollment projection. Under that condition, the Intermediate School Model requires 94 of the 110 full-sized rooms, leaving a districtwide difference of 16 rooms. No modeled site has a full-sized-room deficit, although flexibility is reduced and greater pressure exists within portions of the modeled structure.

The structural modeling also showed that some spaces currently used for programs or services could require a different space solution as enrollment grows. Those model-level findings are not final room or program assignments. With ALT now recommended as the grades 4–5 upper elementary school and centralized preschool recommended at Mt. Horeb, detailed program placement and room use will depend on final K–3 attendance zones, student needs, section counts, staffing, and other implementation decisions.

The model creates capacity primarily by organizing grade-level sections more efficiently across the district’s existing buildings. Under the larger stress test, it projects eight fewer K–5 homeroom sections than the Current Model. The structure may also create opportunities to reduce unnecessary duplication in some staffing or program areas, but actual program and staffing decisions will remain driven by student needs, IEP requirements, enrollment, schedules, and implementation planning.

The district would continue monitoring enrollment, housing approvals and occupancy, class sizes and section counts, building-level room use, and preschool and special-program needs. A material change in those conditions could require the structure to be reconsidered. The model does not eliminate the possibility that major capital investment may eventually be necessary; it provides a way to use the district’s existing buildings more effectively before undertaking that step.

The year 2031 is therefore the end of the period that can currently be projected using known student cohorts and actual birth data—not a predetermined expiration date for the Intermediate School Model.

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: How do PILOT agreements affect school-district funding, and has the district received or been allocated any PILOT revenue?

PILOT agreements are approved by the Township Committee, not the Board of Education. Under the applicable state framework, 95% of the annual PILOT payment is allocated to the municipality and 5% to the county. Unlike conventional property taxes, PILOT revenue does not automatically provide a share to the school district.

In 2022, the Township Committee adopted a forward-looking resolution providing that, if the Township approved future PILOT agreements for multifamily residential developments, 40% of the Township’s share would be allocated to the Warren Township Board of Education, up to the amount the district otherwise would have received through conventional property taxes. That resolution did not apply to PILOT agreements that were already in place. No active residential PILOT agreement is covered by that commitment, and the Township has not indicated that it intends to enter into additional residential PILOT agreements.

The district did receive one voluntary, one-time contribution of $150,000 from Township PILOT revenues for the 2024–2025 school year. Those funds were specifically restricted to purchasing new district printers. This was not a recurring revenue commitment and does not provide continuing funding for enrollment growth, school construction, or other Planning for Growth costs. Any future allocation of municipal PILOT revenue to the school district would require additional action by the Township Committee.

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: How can grade reconfiguration create classroom capacity without building additions? 

Grade reconfiguration does not add square footage. It allows the District to use existing classrooms more efficiently.

Under four separate K–5 schools, each building must operate homeroom sections for every grade level. When enrollment is uneven, one school may need to add another section in a grade even though there may be available seats for students of that same age elsewhere in the District.

Organizing students of similar ages in fewer buildings can reduce that duplication and allow the District to form more balanced grade-level sections within existing class-size guidelines. This creates capacity by using the current classrooms as a coordinated districtwide system rather than as four separate K–5 structures.

Boundary changes can redistribute students, but they do not change the fact that each K–5 school must continue operating every grade level and the related instructional, specialist, and support structures. Other ways to gain space—such as substantially increasing class sizes, reclaiming rooms currently used for programs and services, using temporary space, or constructing additions—also involve significant educational, operational, financial, or community tradeoffs.

The district’s one-page alternatives summary and short visual summary provide additional explanation of how the three models were compared and how sectioning efficiency can improve the use of existing classrooms. 

Q: How will special-program grade spans and third-grade inclusion be handled? 

Specific special-program grade spans have not yet been finalized. State requirements provide flexibility in how grade spans are organized within certain special education programs, and the maximum allowable span does not need to be used in every program.

Under the proposed K–3 and grades 4–5 structure, the district does not anticipate grouping third-grade students with fourth- and fifth-grade students solely because of the school configuration. Program planning will consider appropriate age and grade spans, access to same-age and same-grade peers, grade-level curriculum, meaningful inclusion opportunities, and placement in the least restrictive environment.

Individual student placements, services, and inclusion opportunities will continue to be determined based on each student’s needs and IEP requirements.

Q: Will recently relocated programs have to move again? 

That has not yet been determined. The district recognizes that another relocation could be especially challenging for students, families, and staff whose programs have recently moved. Minimizing unnecessary repeated transitions will be an important consideration when program locations are evaluated.

At the same time, the district must make placement decisions that are sustainable across the entire school system rather than based only on what works under current conditions. The analysis will consider student needs, enrollment, peer and inclusion opportunities, building capacity, specialized rooms, staffing, related-service delivery, transportation, effects on other programs, and long-term flexibility.

The district therefore cannot yet guarantee that a particular program will remain in its current building. The goal is to establish locations that are appropriate for students now and remain workable as enrollment and program needs change.

Q: Will preschool remain an in-district program? 

Yes. The district’s existing preschool program will remain an in-district program under the current Planning for Growth proposal. The district is not recommending Preschool Expansion Aid, universal preschool expansion, or an off-site mixed-delivery model as part of this work.

Administration now recommends that the existing integrated preschool program be centralized at Mt. Horeb School within the proposed structure. 

Q: Where would preschool be housed? 

Administration recommends that the district’s existing integrated preschool program be centralized at Mt. Horeb School for 2027–2028 within the recommended ALT-as-grades-4–5 configuration.

The district studied centralized and distributed preschool approaches and completed a more detailed feasibility review before reaching this recommendation. Remaining work before Board action is focused on confirming that no material facility, operational, financial, transportation, or school-time issue undermines the recommendation.

Detailed classroom locations, student placements, transportation routes, provider schedules, peer balancing, and other implementation details would be developed later if the Board approves the recommended structure.

*New* Q: How would the proposed changes affect students with IEPs or specialized programs, and what will the District do to support students who may need to change schools? 

Planning for Growth does not change the District’s school configuration or attendance zones during the 2026–2027 school year. The proposed Intermediate School Model is targeted for implementation in 2027–2028, if approved by the Board of Education.

Under the current recommendation, Angelo L. Tomaso School (ALT) would become the grades 4–5 upper elementary school, while Central, Mt. Horeb, and Woodland would serve students in grades K–3. Final K–3 attendance boundaries have not yet been adopted.

For most students in grades K–3, children living at the same address would attend the same K–3 school because they would share the same attendance-zone assignment. However, the District cannot guarantee that every sibling will always attend the same building. For a student with an IEP, educational placement must continue to be based on the student’s individual needs and required services. A specialized program may therefore be located in a different building when that placement is appropriate for the student.

Special education and preschool have been central to the Planning for Growth process, not secondary considerations. In recent years, the District has had to move preschool and autism programs as available space changed. Those moves were disruptive for students, families, and staff. One of the reasons the District is considering a larger structural change now is to create a more stable and sustainable system in which specialized programs are less likely to be moved repeatedly in response to short-term space pressures. The Planning for Growth analysis concluded that maintaining the Current Model would likely require continued program relocations and other reactive adjustments as enrollment grows.

That long-term goal does not eliminate the very real transition concerns associated with implementing a new model in 2027–2028. If students or programs need to change buildings, those transitions will require careful planning. The District has been working directly with the Special Education Parent Advisory Group (SEPAG) as part of this process and will continue that partnership during implementation. SEPAG feedback has emphasized sustainable program locations, inclusion and peer access, minimizing unnecessary repeated moves, differentiated transition planning, preparation of receiving staff, and appropriate support for individual students.

Final individual special education placements, provider assignments, room assignments, and other student-specific implementation decisions have not yet been made. Current analysis has found no special-program or student-support issue that makes the recommended model infeasible, but these implementation decisions will continue to be guided by student needs, appropriate services, inclusion opportunities, staffing, transportation, facility requirements, and each student’s IEP.

If the Board approves the plan, the 2026–2027 school year will be used to prepare for the transition. Supports may include building visits, introductions to staff, individualized transition plans, social stories, receiving-staff preparation, and other student-specific supports where appropriate. Families of students with IEPs will also continue to participate in the normal IEP process; Planning for Growth does not replace the individualized decision-making required for students receiving special education services.

*Updated* Q: How will receiving staff be prepared? 

An initial staff-readiness framework has been developed, although detailed professional-development plans for individual buildings, programs, and staff needs have not yet been finalized. Staff preparation will be a significant part of implementation planning. Receiving staff will not simply be expected to adjust to new students, programs, or responsibilities without guidance and support. 

Preparation may include:

• Collaboration between sending and receiving schools

• Joint planning by general and special education staff

• Consultation with specialists and related-service providers

• Training related to behavioral, sensory, communication, instructional, and inclusion needs

• Preparation for adaptive specials and other inclusive settings

• Ongoing paraprofessional training

• Broader disability awareness across the receiving school

The district has experience with this type of preparation. Before the recent autism program move, specialists worked across buildings and collaborated with receiving staff. A similar approach can be used as future program and staffing plans are developed, while recognizing that preparation must address a broad range of student needs and disabilities.

*Updated* 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 is studying sibling transportation scenarios, event scheduling, start and end times, aftercare implications, and ways to support families with children in multiple schools as transportation, scheduling, and implementation planning continue. 

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

This remains an important concern. Some students and families have experienced more disruption than others because enrollment growth, prior rezoning, and program changes have not affected every part of the district equally.

The District has considered prior moves as part of its transition-readiness work. Rather than applying one blanket transition rule based solely on whether a student was previously reassigned, the District expects transition supports to be differentiated according to student and cohort needs. Students who have experienced prior transitions may require additional attention as those supports are developed.

Specific student- and cohort-level transition plans have not yet been finalized. If the Intermediate School Model is approved, transition planning during 2026–2027 will consider prior school changes along with student needs, school assignments, peer relationships, program needs, and other factors that may affect a successful transition.

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: What does research say about additional school transitions, and how did the district weigh that evidence when evaluating the Intermediate School Model? 

Research on grade configurations and school transitions is limited and does not identify one school structure as universally superior. Some studies have found associations between additional school transitions or narrower grade spans and lower academic performance, including a Texas study in which fifth-grade students attending K–5 schools outperformed matched fifth-grade students attending Grade 5 or Grades 5–6 intermediate schools. Other research has found no statistically significant relationship between grade configuration and academic achievement.

Much of the broader research on transitions examines students moving into middle-school settings, particularly in grades 6–8. Those studies are relevant to understanding transition risk, but they are not directly equivalent to Warren’s proposed standalone grades 4–5 upper-elementary school. In addition, much of the research is observational, making it difficult to separate the effect of the school transition itself from other factors such as instructional quality, school climate, curriculum continuity, teacher-student relationships, school size, and differences among communities.

The district takes this research seriously. An additional school transition is a genuine disadvantage of the Intermediate School Model and was considered as part of the student-experience and organizational-change criteria. At the same time, the research does not establish that Warren students would necessarily experience the same outcomes reported in other settings or that a grades 4–5 structure is educationally unsound.

This conclusion is also consistent with the district’s earlier Planning for Elementary Growth work. In 2021–2022, the district reviewed available research regarding grade configuration and concluded that the findings were inconclusive. That earlier review recognized both the potential effects of additional transitions and the fact that highly successful school districts operate under a variety of grade configurations.

In weighing transition risk, the district also considered the broader conditions that support student success across different structures, including strong teaching, positive teacher-student relationships, supportive classroom and school communities, continuity of curriculum and services, and effective systems of intervention and support.

Accordingly, if the Intermediate School Model is approved, implementation planning would focus on preserving an age-appropriate upper-elementary experience, supporting student belonging and relationships, maintaining instructional continuity, providing deliberate transition supports, and monitoring student experience and academic indicators over time.

The district’s conclusion is not that an additional transition has no potential cost. It is that transition risk is one important factor that must be weighed alongside enrollment sustainability, class sizes, program access, repeated rezoning or program moves, facility pressure, staffing, transportation, and the other effects students could experience under the alternatives. The existing research supports taking the transition seriously and planning for it carefully; it does not predict a definite outcome for Warren students.

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.

*Updated* Q: What transportation, school-time, and family-impact information will the Board receive before voting?

Transportation and school times are part of the district’s decision-readiness work; they are not being deferred entirely until after a structural decision. Before voting, the Board should have enough information to determine that the Intermediate School Model can be operated responsibly and to understand the principal transportation, school-time, and family tradeoffs associated with it.

The District and its transportation consultant are continuing to evaluate transportation and school-time options for the recommended configuration, including two-tier, three-tier, and possible hybrid approaches. Before Board action, the district expects to be able to explain:

• Whether a workable transportation and school-time structure exists

• The most realistic tiering approaches and their general implications for school start and end times

• Broad and representative ride-time implications for the recommended ALT grades 4–5 configuration 

• Major vehicle, driver, staffing, and cost implications

• How preschool and specialized transportation affect feasibility

• How different school schedules could affect siblings and families with children attending more than one school

• Any significant transportation or school-time tradeoffs that the Board should weigh as part of the overall recommendation

Transportation analysis is now focused on the recommended configuration of ALT as grades 4–5 and Central, Mt. Horeb, and Woodland as K–3 schools. The district and its consultants are testing two-tier, three-tier, and possible hybrid approaches and will use actual 2026–2027 transportation information to compare current and future conditions. 

The pre-vote work must nevertheless do more than state that transportation will be addressed later. It must establish overall feasibility, identify significant risks and tradeoffs, and give the Board and community a realistic understanding of how the proposed structure could affect school times, student travel, sibling schedules, and family routines before Board action.

*Updated* Q: Why isn’t the district recommending additions or new construction as the primary response to enrollment growth?

Additions and new construction were considered during the Planning for Growth process. They are not the recommended first response because the district’s challenge is not simply a districtwide shortage of square footage. Growth is unevenly distributed, and operating four separate K–5 schools requires each building to maintain sections, schedules, staffing, specials, intervention, and student-support structures across every elementary grade.

Adding classrooms to one building could provide localized space, but it would not by itself improve sectioning across the district or address the staffing and scheduling pressures created when enrollment varies by grade and school. For example, the current six-day elementary schedule reaches a practical staffing limit at approximately 18 homeroom sections in a building. Constructing additional rooms would not, by itself, remove that organizational constraint.

Earlier conceptual facility work showed that smaller additions may be physically possible at the elementary schools, although the cost, disruption, site impact, and ease of construction vary significantly. It also showed that the sites differ substantially in their ability to accommodate larger additions. Those concepts were developed to illustrate physical possibilities and scale; they were not construction proposals, and the older cost estimates associated with them should not be treated as current project pricing. A new school would also require suitable land, extensive planning and approvals, a substantial capital commitment and, depending on the financing approach, could require voter approval.

The Intermediate School Model instead seeks to use the district’s four existing elementary buildings as a coordinated system. By organizing grades 4–5 together and distributing K–3 students among three schools, the district can form sections more efficiently and reduce duplication that occurs when every building serves every elementary grade. Under the larger stress-test scenario, the structural modeling projects eight fewer K–5 homeroom sections than the Current Model. This represents potential future cost avoidance—not guaranteed savings—because actual staffing will depend on enrollment, student needs, programs, schedules, and annual budget decisions.

This recommendation does not rule out capital investment. Some facility adjustments are likely to be necessary to prepare buildings and classrooms for a different grade configuration, and the specific requirements will depend on the approved configuration, detailed program placement, and implementation decisions. Larger additions or new construction could also become necessary in the future if enrollment or program needs exceed updated projections. The current recommendation is to use existing facilities more effectively before asking the community to undertake major construction.

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.

With ALT recommended as the grades 4–5 upper elementary school and centralized preschool recommended at Mt. Horeb, the remaining facility work is focused on the specific room, support-space, restroom, furniture, technology, storage, arrival/dismissal, and other day-one requirements of the recommended configuration. 

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.

Q: Why is Angelo L. Tomaso School now the recommended location for the grades 4–5 upper elementary school?

Administration recommends Angelo L. Tomaso School (ALT) as the grades 4–5 upper elementary-school location within the recommended Intermediate School Model. The Board’s Ad Hoc Planning for Growth Committee has reviewed the recommendation and supporting evidence and supports advancing ALT for full Board consideration. The Board has not yet taken final action; the anticipated vote remains September 28, 2026.

Both ALT and Mt. Horeb were evaluated carefully, and both are feasible locations for the anticipated grades 4–5 program. The recommendation of ALT is therefore not based on a conclusion that Mt. Horeb cannot accommodate grades 4–5. Mt. Horeb has meaningful standalone strengths, including somewhat larger classrooms and advantages in some physical education, performance, and small-group spaces.

The district evaluated the sites as parts of the entire elementary system, rather than simply comparing classroom counts. The analysis considered educational programming, facilities, transportation and circulation, K–3 student assignments and travel, preschool, special programs and student supports, implementation complexity, staffing, and long-term flexibility. The district’s demographer and transportation consultant also independently identified ALT as the preferred grades 4–5 location. On balance, the combined evidence favors ALT because it provides the stronger overall systemwide and long-term fit.

Recommending ALT also allows several dependent areas of planning to become more specific. Administration now recommends maintaining the district’s existing integrated preschool program in a centralized model at Mt. Horeb. Current elementary principals are expected to remain with their current buildings if the plan is approved and implemented. Planning for special programs and student supports can also proceed around ALT serving grades 4–5 and Central, Mt. Horeb, and Woodland serving K–3.

Important implementation questions remain open. The district is continuing to analyze the general K–3 assignment concept, transportation tiering and school-time implications, staffing and resource needs, implementation costs, and transition planning. Final attendance boundaries, individual student assignments, detailed transportation routes and exact school times, individual staff assignments, and room-by-room program placements are not final at this time.

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 upper elementary-school

• Warren Middle School remaining grades 6–8

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

Q: Would the Intermediate School Model close one of Warren Township’s elementary schools?

No. The recommended Intermediate School Model would continue to use the District’s four elementary school buildings in a different grade configuration: three grades K–3 schools and one grades 4–5 school.

The recommendation does not propose closing an elementary school building. ALT is now the recommended grades 4–5 location; final Board action has not occurred. 

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.

*New* Q: Why isn’t the proposed Intermediate School Model being put to a public referendum? Other New Jersey districts have held referendums when changing school configurations. 

New Jersey school districts sometimes make grade-configuration changes at the same time they pursue a public referendum. In those cases, however, the referendum generally involves funding that requires voter authorization, such as borrowing for major construction or approval of additional spending, rather than a legal requirement that voters approve the grade configuration itself.

Bridgewater-Raritan provides one example. Its 2023 referendums authorized bond-funded renovations, additions, and other facility improvements, including construction supporting full-day kindergarten and the movement of sixth grade to the middle school.

Similarly, Collingswood’s 2024 referendum asked voters to authorize approximately $44.5 million in capital projects and borrowing, including acquisition and renovation of a facility connected to a proposed grades 4–5 upper elementary school.

Warren’s situation is different. The recommended Intermediate School Model would reorganize students within the District’s existing facilities into three K–3 schools and one grades 4–5 upper elementary school. The Planning for Growth analysis found that the model can be implemented without major construction requiring a bond referendum. New Jersey law gives local boards of education responsibility for the government and management of their public schools. There is therefore no legal requirement that Warren conduct a referendum before the Board acts on the proposed school configuration.

The District has received requests from residents asking the Board to place the question before voters. Those requests are part of the community input being received and considered during the Planning for Growth process. Under New Jersey law, however, residents do not have a statutory petition process that requires a board of education to call a special school election. A board may call a special election under the circumstances permitted by law, but the District’s current process calls for the elected Board of Education to consider the Planning for Growth recommendation at a public Board meeting.

This does not mean community input is unimportant. The Planning for Growth process has included community representatives, public meetings, Working Group deliberations, Board discussions, FAQs, community correspondence, Back-to-School Night information opportunities, and other ways for residents to raise questions and provide feedback. The Board of Education, as Warren’s elected school governing body, is responsible for considering that information and deciding whether to approve the proposed school organization.

If a future proposal includes borrowing, additional spending, or another financing mechanism for which New Jersey law requires voter authorization, the District would follow the applicable referendum requirements.

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

No school assignments, grade configurations, transportation routes, or staff assignments are changing during the 2026–2027 school year as a result of Planning for Growth.

If the Board approves the recommended structure, the 2026–2027 school year will be used for detailed implementation planning, communication, staff and student preparation, transition activities, and the additional Board and administrative decisions required before implementation in 2027–2028.

*Updated* Q: What would the September 28 Board vote decide?

The Board is anticipated to consider a resolution on September 28 that would approve the overall Planning for Growth school-organization and implementation framework for 2027–2028.

The proposed action would include:

• implementation of the Intermediate School Model for 2027–2028;

• Angelo L. Tomaso School as the grades 4–5 upper elementary school;

• Central, Mt. Horeb, and Woodland as grades K–3 schools;

• Warren Middle School continuing as grades 6–8;

• centralized preschool at Mt. Horeb;

• direction to develop final K–3 attendance zones for later Board approval; and

• authorization for the Superintendent and administration to proceed with implementation planning, subject to applicable law, Board policy, collective bargaining agreements, budgets, and matters requiring additional Board action.

The September 28 action would not establish final K–3 street- or address-level attendance zones or individual student assignments. It also would not establish final bus routes, stops, ride times or school start/end times; individual instructional or support staff assignments; room-by-room placements; detailed schedules; or other implementation-level details.

Individual special education placements will continue to be determined through each student’s IEP and applicable law.

Final K–3 attendance zones will return to the Board for separate action after the additional boundary-development and public-communication work is completed.

*Updated* Q: What has not been decided yet?

Several important implementation questions remain under review. These include:

• final K–3 street- and address-level attendance zones and individual student assignments;

• the final transportation operating structure, routes, bus stops, ride times, bus assignments, and school start and end times;

• individual instructional and support staff assignments;

• detailed room use and program placements;

• student- and cohort-specific transition supports;

• facility adjustments, furniture, technology, and classroom setup; and

• detailed schedules and other implementation design.

Elementary principals are expected to remain with their current buildings if the Intermediate School Model is approved and implemented. Individual instructional and support staff assignments have not been made and would be addressed through the implementation process.

Some readiness questions must be understood sufficiently before the Board acts on September 28. Detailed implementation decisions do not all need to be finalized before structural action and would continue through the 2026–2027 implementation process if the Board approves the recommendation.

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, ALT is now the district’s recommended grades 4–5 location and centralized preschool at Mt. Horeb is the administrative recommendation. The remaining readiness period is testing and completing that recommended configuration before Board action, not restarting the site and preschool analyses from the beginning. 

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.

*Updated* Q: Why is 2027-2028 the targeted implementation year, and what conditions could cause the district to proceed, delay, or reconsider?

The district continues to plan for implementation in the 2027–2028 school year. The district has not changed that target, and based on the information available today, 2027–2028 remains the expected and most likely implementation year.

The target provides approximately a full year after anticipated Board action for detailed implementation planning while allowing the district to act before projected space pressures require reactive decisions. The demographic and utilization studies show that Central has limited long-term flexibility and that Woodland faces significant pressure as remaining Round 3 housing is occupied. Waiting until classrooms or program spaces are already unavailable would leave fewer responsible choices and could require rushed rezoning, room repurposing, program moves, class-size changes, or other short-term measures.

The target also falls within the district’s five-year demographic planning horizon. Near-term projections can use known enrollment, live-birth information, cohort-survival patterns, natural housing turnover, and approved housing. Projections become less reliable farther into the future because future birth rates, housing turnover, development timing, and student yields cannot be known with the same confidence. The district therefore plans using the best available near-term evidence and updates that evidence as conditions change.

Assuming Board approval, the district expects to proceed in 2027–2028 if the readiness work confirms that the major elements of the structure can be implemented responsibly. Before Board action, the district should be able to establish that:

• The recommended ALT grades 4–5 configuration and the general K–3 assignment concept are feasible 

• Preschool, special education, and other student-support needs can be accommodated responsibly

• Transportation and school-time analysis identifies a workable structure

• Necessary facility preparations can be completed safely and on time

• Preliminary staffing, financial, and operational planning supports implementation

• The district has sufficient time and organizational capacity for student, family, and staff transition planning

These are implementation safeguards, not indications that a delay is anticipated. Detailed routes, individual student assignments, room placements, staff assignments, and transition activities do not all need to be finalized before the Board acts. They do need to fit within a credible path to implementation.

A delay would be considered if material new information creates a significant barrier to responsible implementation—for example, if transportation proves unworkable, essential facility work cannot be completed safely and on time, required programs cannot be housed appropriately, or another critical operational dependency cannot be resolved. A delay in one housing development, by itself, would not automatically justify postponement. The district would consider updated enrollment, natural growth, housing occupancy, building capacity, and implementation lead time together.

Reconsidering the Intermediate School Model itself would require a more fundamental change in the evidence, such as a materially different enrollment outlook or a finding that the structure cannot be operated responsibly.

The district will continue updating the evidence and testing implementation readiness before Board action. At present, however, the district is planning toward 2027–2028 implementation—not treating it as one of several equally likely possibilities.