Anne Arundel board launches Phase 2 redistricting process, opens public mapping tool Feb. 1

The Board of Education of Anne Arundel County held a workshop to present Phase 2 of its comprehensive redistricting plan and the public engagement timeline, with an interactive mapping tool scheduled to go live Feb. 1 and a comment period running through May 1.

The presentation, led by Chief Operating Officer Bill Heiser and Director of Facilities Kyle Roof, laid out the planning documents, enrollment projections and schedule staff intend to follow: staff will consider community feedback and provide recommendations to Superintendent Dr. Bedell in June; the superintendent will present formal recommendations to the board in July; the board will select options for public hearings in August and is scheduled to vote on final boundaries in November.

Staff emphasized the exercise is intended to balance school enrollments and strengthen the district’s case for capital funding. Heiser said available district seats are projected to drop over time as enrollment grows: staff presented that the district expects to add roughly 5,000 students over the next decade and that enrollment figures used in planning include a rise from about 79,000 in 2014 to roughly 91,000 by 2033. Heiser and Roof noted the district currently deploys 160 portable classrooms countywide — 92 at elementary schools — and that the state-rated elementary classroom capacity used in their calculations is 23 seats per classroom. Utilization bands in staff materials classify schools above 110% as overcapacity and below 75% as underutilized; portables were described as additional capacity and are not included in the state-rated building capacities presented.

The presentation identified the primary guiding documents for capital planning as the district’s Long Range Study, the Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP) and the Comprehensive Maintenance Plan (CMP). Staff said a consultant developed three redistricting scenarios between July and December 2024 and the same types of variables used in Phase 1 will guide scenario generation in Phase 2.

On legal authority and internal rules, staff cited Section 4-109 of the Education Article as allowing local education agencies to set geographic school boundaries and said district policy JAA and its regulation guide the process.

Board members asked detailed questions about the variables and transparency of the process. Several members asked whether measures of student socioeconomic status — for example, free and reduced-price meal rates — would be included in the scenarios; Heiser said those data are not included in the scenarios, adding that the decision was made to remain consistent with the Phase 1 variables and JAA policy. Heiser said, “It is not figured in,” when asked specifically about free and reduced-price meal rates.

Board members also asked about potential website outages and the district’s ability to extend the public comment period if technical issues arise. Heiser said staff are confident in the website’s capacity and plan to adhere to the February 1–May 1 timeline while working with communications and IT to address any glitches; he said, “We’d like to stick though, because we’re on a tight timeline. We like to stick to the February 1 to May 1 timeline.”

Staff highlighted Phase 1 engagement metrics and asked the public to participate: Phase 1 drew roughly 33,000 unique website users, about 86,000 page views, approximately 15,000 unique address searches, more than 22,000 survey responses and several hundred map comments, according to the presentation. Staff said public comments will be reviewed and used to refine recommendations, but cautioned that not every requested outcome can be accommodated.

Board members also raised process questions: whether Phase 2 boundary changes could affect families moved in Phase 1 (staff confirmed that some families could be impacted by more than one phase because redistricting is being done in stages), whether the district coordinates with county and city planning offices on development projections (staff said yes), and how the district accounts for projected new development, birth rates and resale activity in enrollment projections.

No formal votes or motions were taken at the workshop. Staff reminded the public that the workshop was informational and that no public testimony would be taken at the meeting; the district will accept feedback through the interactive tool and other communications channels during the stated comment period. The presentation and the mapping tool links were posted to AACPS channels and TV broadcast information was provided for viewers.

The board concluded by urging broad public participation and noting the goal of the redistricting work: to ensure the best possible educational opportunity for all students across the county while making efficient use of existing seats and strengthening the district’s position for future capital funding.