Lexington High School in Sept. 2024
Lexington High School in Sept. 2024. / Credit: Maggie Scales

The predicted future enrollment for the new Lexington High School, which is supposed to open in 2029, is 2,395 students. 

That number was decided by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), the state entity the town is working with to finance the new high school. Lexington’s School Building Committee predicts the town will get about $121 million from authority as of its Oct. 6 meeting. 

If Lexington wants to maintain that partnership and get that funding, it has to let the MSBA forecast what LHS’s future enrollment could be. 

But some residents are skeptical of the enrollment number the MSBA drew up. 

Residents have voiced concern that the MSBA’s prediction is too low because of the unknown effects that incoming multifamily housing could have on enrollment. Lexington plans to bring about 1,100 new multifamily units to town as a result of the MBTA Communities Act. Other new housing continues to come online, too. 

This is how that 2,395 figure was born:

The MSBA works with an outside consultant to predict future enrollment. They come up with a baseline number using past enrollment data from the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, birth data from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, female population data from the US Census Bureau, and female population projections from the University of Massachusetts’s Donahue Institute. 

According to the MSBA’s website, here’s how that data is used: 

  • Birth and female population data are used to calculate fertility rates;
  • Fertility rates are applied to actual and projected female populations;
  • Birth data and Kindergarten enrollment data is used to calculate an average birth-to-kindergarten ratio;
  • The birth-to-kindergarten ratio is applied to actual and projected births to generate Kindergarten enrollments;
  • Historic enrollment data is used to calculate average grade-to-grade survival ratios (the proportion of students enrolled in one grade and school year to the number of students enrolled in the next grade and school year) to project the number of students in each grade;
  • Grade-to-grade survival ratios are applied to actual and projected student enrollments to generate grade one through 12 enrollment projections; and
  • The baseline enrollment is calculated using the ten-year average of projected enrollments for the grades.

Based on that information, the MSBA’s baseline enrollment prediction for LHS was 2,120.

That prediction does not include factors such as incoming housing or immigration waves. As a part of the MSBA’s process, it asks districts to provide information on variables like those to better forecast future enrollment. 

Lexington made the authority aware of how the MBTA Communities Act could impact the town. 

The MSBA normally uses a five-year average cohort survival rate, which essentially assumes that future enrollment patterns will mirror the average of the past five years. But because of the possible impact incoming multifamily housing could have on LHS enrollment, the MSBA used a five-year 75th percentile cohort survival rate for 2024 and 2025, which assumes future enrollment will mirror the highest recent growth patterns rather than the typical ones. Using a higher percentile for the forecast will result in a higher projected enrollment.  

That adjustment added 225 students to the baseline enrollment prediction. 

The town also made the MSBA aware of the high number of students the school enrolls from other districts. Again, the MSBA adjusted accordingly. 

“The MSBA adjusted the grade-to-grade survival ratios for grades 9 through 12 by a total of 3.3 percent throughout a four-year period,” a Jan. 2023 letter from the MSBA to former Town Manager James Malloy states. 

That adjustment added 50 students to the baseline estimate, bringing the total predicted enrollment to 2,395. 

Based on that calculation, Lexington’s design team drew up a school that can accommodate 2,395 students at 85 percent utilization (23 students per classroom). The idea is 85 percent utilization is compact enough that a lot of space isn’t left idle, but comfortable enough that there isn’t overcrowding.

The new high school offers some leeway should more students come to LHS than what the MSBA predicted. The current design of the school includes a 20,000 square foot central office space that could be converted to 11 to 12 general education classrooms. And if that’s not enough space, the school could increase its utilization rate, though that wouldn’t be ideal. 

If the school pushed utilization to 90 percent, classroom sizes could increase to 25 students per classroom. That might be fine in general education classrooms, but bathrooms will feel more crowded, as will the library, auditorium, cafeteria, and other spaces. That increased utilization will also make it more difficult to create schedules and properly transition classes in between periods. 

Ninety percent would still be better than LHS’s reality right now, however. Today, LHS is operating around 97 percent utilization.

The town has also discussed the possibility of building an addition onto the new high school if needed. That would only happen if the converted central office space and increased utilization don’t adequately mitigate overcrowding.

Ultimately, it’s difficult to predict future enrollment, especially with Lexington’s incoming housing as a variable. Yes, the town will get at least 1,100 new multifamily housing units because of the MBTA Communities Act, but new housing could also come in different ways.

Several property owners have successfully applied to freeze an earlier zoning bylaw in place, which gives them the ability to build multifamily housing over the next eight years if they want. One developer applied to divide a Lexington Center property into three and build a cul-de-sac. The town approved his application. Months after he applied, his plan changed — now he plans to build a 50-plus unit multifamily housing complex with commercial space on the property.

“I still think that this high school plan is very appropriate, I think the flexibility is going to be really helpful, but I do think it’s important for everyone to acknowledge that those preliminary subdivision plans have been filed,” Lexington resident Kate Colburn said during one of SBC’s community meetings in March. 

Lexington is working to bring 100 percent affordable housing to town in addition to MBTA Communities Act housing. A 40-unit complex could come to the intersection of Lowell Street and North Street.

That unpredictability is what makes some residents skeptical about the MSBA’s enrollment prediction and subsequently, the size of the new high school. Skeptics think the town should build a larger school in phases. But the MSBA does not usually help finance phased projects.

LPS Superintendent Julie Hackett and others close to the project have said they don’t want to have a high school that accommodates more than 3,000 students. 

“How big is too big for a school, right?” Andrew Baker, principal of LHS, said during a SBC meeting in October 2024. “When does it sort of strip away at the sense of community or create a place that adolescents can’t thrive in because it’s too large to navigate or too large to handle?”

Join the Conversation

12 Comments

  1. Lexington’s population (12,000 households now) may increase by 48% in the next decade because 5,750 new MBTA units already permitted or allowable in Town can be expected as follows:

    – 1,150 already permitted units in 11 projects (https://www.lexingtonma.gov/1496/MBTA-Communities-Zoning), plus

    – 3,000 units from filings that secured an 8-year MBTA zoning freeze (red cell of https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17OpIfyFsvGyrz8u_fQ5nhWYk7rnEDml4/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true, which assumes the same 50 units per acre density as in the 11 permitted projects), plus

    – 1,600 units on 80 acres still zoned for MBTA developments by the March 2025 Special Town Meeting, but with stricter height, etc limitations, allowing an average density of 20 units per acre instead of 50.

    LHS has 2,367 students as of October 1, 2025. Add 48% to that number, and you get 3,503 possible students in 2035 (unless lower grades cohorts continue to get smaller).

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HVlamMRpUJJe_0vHDfoYTuwLw1Fx54CYeB1jF6YOaz4/edit?usp=sharing lists 2 ways for Bloom to be physically enlarged, (i) move the Central Office out of Bloom which adds capacity for 244 students, and (ii) an additional expansion which adds capacity for 256 students.

    If (i) and (ii) are done (at an undisclosed cost in addition to $660 million that the MSBA would not fund), Bloom’s capacity rises from 2,395 to 2,895 students.

    With enrollments 48% higher than today at LHS, Bloom would operate at 121% of design capacity in 2035, well above LHS’s current overcrowding: LHS operates at 97% capacity utilization instead of the desirable 85% for which Bloom is designed.

    1. If we need a larger high school, why would we stop the project to build a larger high school?

      Abandoning this LHS project means forfeiting $121.3M in state funding, we have to bring the current building up to code at a cost of $300M+, AND design and build an addition for 600 students in tomorrow’s dollars.
      The alternative to YES costs MORE to tax payers.
      Please check out the “Vote Implications” video on the LHS Project website: https://www.lhsproject.lexingtonma.org/faq-videos
      This 2min video explains the consequences of voting down this LHS project:
      1. We lose $121M in state funding,
      2. We have to pay $311M to renovate the current LHS,
      3. We need to build an additional building to support the 600+ students that the current LHS is overcrowded by.
      Voting NO doesn’t mean Lexingtonians do not have to build a new high school, it means we forfeit a beautiful new building for some Frankenschool that will cost us just as much, if not more.

      We have put out information about how future students from the new housing can be absorbed by this new building, and here it is again: https://www.yes4lex.org/info/mbta

      I will also call your attention to the October 1 enrollment data that just became available:
      Elementary Section Detail Based on Preliminary October 1 Enrollments:
      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U8aI6EzWcPaL_KapuBxQy4oRJjnhwzPC9F5jegFXIak/edit?gid=0#gid=0
      Annual District Enrollment by Grade Over Time
      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14Iod634mCAUCPmy3kEbgEW-240D-Dm4xjGoVpZlXViI/edit?gid=0#gid=0
      The point is: the data shows current enrollment in grades 5 through 8, would lead to 2,159 students in the new LHS in 29-30 (the year it opens). 236 students LESS than the 2,395 it is built for.

      With gratitude for your consideration, – Taylor

      1. Taylor:

        “we have to bring the current [LHS] building up to code at a cost of $300M+” is untrue, as explained in #1 and #4 of https://lexobserver.org/2025/08/18/letters-to-the-editor-some-facts-about-bloom/.

        “$300M+” or “$311 million” are inventions: we now spend $8 million annually to maintain all our 17 schools and municipal buildings, repeat SEVENTEEN buildings, including LHS.

        And no “code upgrades” (as Bloom supporters keep talking about) are needed on the LHS campus.

        Bloom costs 39% more per square foot than the new Watertown High School (see updated https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PcH2CCi7DjPlKq10Q0ZhS41RU4VY6D9O/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true). Designing a larger, cheaper on-campus box-based new High School will delay the process by just 1 year, so why scare voters by suggesting we will keep LHS for “10 years”?

        That alternative design is just as eligible for MSBA funding as Bloom is, which would receive 18% of its $660 million cost from the MSBA.

        We, Lexington taxpayers, would pay 82% of Bloom which costs 39% too much, but is indeed very very very very “beautiful”, perhaps too “beautiful” (and expensive…) for the good of our finances — what a “deal”!… It deserves our NO vote on Monday, December 8.

  2. For a more sophisticated analysis of enrollment and housing, and what we actually know about future development, I suggest readers consult Dr. Hackett’s January 29,2025 memo, which states in part:

    “With a total enrollment capacity of approximately 3,263 students and anticipated student enrollment with housing development projections included (FY26 = 2,401, FY27 = 2,452, and FY28 = 2,481), the Bloom design can easily accommodate close to +800 more students beyond the known housing development (as of January 2025).”

    Also, Lexington’s school population swelled in the 70’s, then declined in the 80’s – despite having roughly the same number of housing units. Elementary school enrollment in Lexington has declined by 20% in the past 5 years. Housing numbers alone doesn’t determine school enrollment.

    Lexington High School is overcrowded, it’s been overcrowded for two decades, and that all of the HVAC systems and the roof are at the end of their lives, and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to replace.

    We have the Bloom plan now, and it’s designed to be flexible and accommodate up to 3,263 students with an addition – which is as large as you want a single high school to get. Beyond that size, we’re looking at building a second high school, like Newton.

    Right now, for the forseeable future, Bloom is the right choice.

    1. Meg:

      It is not helpful that you keep repeating the untrue “hundreds of millions of dollars to replace [LHS equipment]”: we spend $8 million annually to maintain all our 17 schools and municipal buildings, including LHS, so how can $8 million for 17 buildings translate into “hundreds of millions of dollars” for LHS, just 1 of 17 buildings? It makes no sense.

      Re sophistication of enrollment projections, Julie’s memo ignores the details of MBTA zoning, which are that we could see in Lexington in the next decade 5,750 new dwelling units: 1,150 units already permitted in 11 known projects (https://www.lexingtonma.gov/1496/MBTA-Communities-Zoning), plus 3,000 from 8-year zoning freezes at 16 other sites (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17OpIfyFsvGyrz8u_fQ5nhWYk7rnEDml4/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true) (at the same 50 units per acre density as the 1,150), plus 1,600 on 80 acres zoned for MBTA developments by the March 2025 STM, at only 20 units per acre due to stricter rules.

      And this doesn’t include a development of 40 units like https://www.lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14393/Causeway-Lowell-Street-Parcel-Design-Package?bidId=, which is not an “MBTA development”, nor smaller “Special Permit Residential Developments” (article 33 of the 2023 ATM): nobody has yet even tried to project a count of the units these could generate beyond the 5,750 MBTA units I project.

      5,750 new units represent a 48% increase of our population (12,000 households now). LHS had 2,367 students on Oct 1, 2025; times 1.48 makes its possible enrollment 3,500 in 2035, which Bloom cannot accommodate, even if the CO moves out and a wing of Bloom is extended (both at an undisclosed cost beyond $660 million, which itself is 39% higher per sq ft than the new Watertown High School per https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PcH2CCi7DjPlKq10Q0ZhS41RU4VY6D9O/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true).

      That’s why we should vote NO on December 8, to get Town officials to not repeat with Bloom the HUGE mistake they made by zoning 227 acres for MBTA developments, 10 times more than we had to do. The Bloom disaster has the same root causes as the 227 acres disaster: Town officials don’t know how to do long-range planning of enrollments, nor of our Town budgets.

  3. How did we spiral into approving so many new multi family builds?
    Maybe it’s time to adopt new tax codes geared towards property owners who are building these multi family homes to provide funds for schools? Outside of the costs of the new school building, there will be costs of adding teachers, counselors, custodians, etc. Who will pay for that?
    Let’s not forget the strain these new multi family units will have on police and fire departments as well traffic congestion.
    All these new costs should be absorbed by the new builders not by residents who have lived here for years. These plans only make it impossible for long time residents to continue living in the town they helped create and love due to exorbitant property tax bills.

  4. I just read up on the 40 unit affordable housing project at Lowell and North St mentioned in this article after remembering the Town Meeting vote from a few years ago. This is another example of good intentions being taken way too far by the town (e.g., MBTA zoning). For those that aren’t aware they are shoehorning in 40 units at a very busy intersection on a site that is extensively wetlands. Have we not learned our lesson about the problems created by maximum density?

  5. Responding to Alan’s comment, in Dr. Hackett’s very good letter please focus on Page 3. Her arguments are the same as I and others have been making since the MBTA rezoning has been passed. Building Bloom just because MSBA does not have the foresight to accommodate our request for additional funding does not serve Lexington well in the long run.

    With the potential of growing Lexington’s population by over 45% due to the MBTA rezoning, we should expect influx of students in all of our schools, but especially at LHS. Yet, Lexington has no good building lots for a new school. After Bloom is built it will allow only for a 25,000 sq.ft. addition that will accommodate about LHS 550 students. If a single staged box-like project design is followed as suggested in the 2015 Master Plan it will also be eligible for MSBA funding. But the main benefit of this design is that it would leave enough space on campus to build an additional building accommodating at least 1,200 students. Following Dr. Hackett’s excellent suggestion to reconfigure grades if needed, we could have a separate Freshmen House and a 10-12 High School. We would not need another building site and attain large savings by not replicating a lot of infrastructure. In the long run Bloom will cost Lexington taxpayers dearly. This is why I am voting NO on Monday, Dec. 8.

Leave a comment
When commenting, please keep in mind we are a small non-profit focused on serving our community. Our commenting policy is simple:
  1. Common sense civility: we’re all neighbors, but we can disagree.
  2. Full name required: no anonymous comments.
  3. Assume the best of your neighbors.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *