2013 PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

for the

DISTRICT of COLUMBIA

Ayers Saint Gross Architects + Planners | Fielding Nair International

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................1
High Quality Education for all DC Children.................................................................. 2 Strategies to Address Needs........................................................................................ 6

CHAPTER 1: MASTER FACILITY PLAN VISION...........................................11
Background................................................................................................................. 12 The Problem................................................................................................................ 12 Mission Statement...................................................................................................... 13 Vision........................................................................................................................... 13 Guiding Principles........................................................................................................ 15 Learning from Research and Best Practices................................................................. 16

CHAPTER 2: MASTER FACILITY PLAN PROCESS......................................19
Project Communications and Outreach...................................................................... 20 Developing the Guiding Principles.............................................................................. 22 Prioritized List of Guiding Principles............................................................................ 24 Relationship to Previous Studies................................................................................. 25 Geographic Assessment.............................................................................................. 26 Data Sets..................................................................................................................... 26 Facility Grade Banding................................................................................................. 30

CHAPTER 3: ENROLLMENT, CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION....................31
Premise ....................................................................................................................... 32 Purpose....................................................................................................................... 32 Space Per Student....................................................................................................... 34 Enrollment................................................................................................................... 36 Utilization.................................................................................................................... 38 Findings....................................................................................................................... 41

CHAPTER FOUR: POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT FORECAST..........47
Premise........................................................................................................................ 48 Purpose....................................................................................................................... 48 Population Forecast..................................................................................................... 50 Enrollment Forecast.................................................................................................... 56 Projected Unmet Need................................................................................................ 56 Findings....................................................................................................................... 56

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER FIVE: FACILITY CONDITION, QUALITY AND EFFICACY......63
Premise........................................................................................................................ 64 Purpose....................................................................................................................... 64 Facility Condition......................................................................................................... 65 Educational Facilities Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI)................................................. 66 EFEI Patterns to Measure School Facility Efficacy........................................................ 67 Findings....................................................................................................................... 78

CHAPTER SIX: PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK........................................93
Understanding Facility Need....................................................................................... 94 Current Fit Need Assessment...................................................................................... 96 2017 Projected Fit....................................................................................................... 99 1998-2012 DCPS Modernization Equity...................................................................... 102 Neighborhood Cluster Characteristics......................................................................... 105 Facility Condition and Quality..................................................................................... 108

CHAPTER SEVEN: RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................113
Strategic Investments.................................................................................................. 114 Areas of Greatest Need............................................................................................... 114 Strategies to Address Needs........................................................................................ 117

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................123 APPENDIX A: SCHOOL LISTING...................................................................127

Cover Photograph: Capital City Public Charter School by Drew Angerer

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HIGH QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL CHILDREN IN DC
Every young person deserves a high quality public education in a state of the art facility. Great schools and great facilities go hand-in-hand. Buildings and their sites are the “hardware” that run the “software” of quality education programming. Just as advanced software runs better on great hardware, great teaching and learning are enhanced by great facilities. More significantly, great facilities offer opportunities to develop teaching and learning approaches that simply are not possible in buildings designed for a different era. In much the same way as tablet computers have ushered in a new universe of “apps,” a new era of modernized facilities offers teachers and students the opportunity to engage in modern ways of teaching and learning, as well as to develop the pedagogical approaches of the future. The District of Columbia has made enormous strides towards bringing all public school facilities to a level of quality that supports great teaching and learning. Since 2008, the District has spent nearly $1.5 billion and completed work at 64 schools, encompassing 7.3 million square feet. This unprecedented investment in facilities was matched by a proliferation of high quality educational options throughout the city. As a result of these efforts, more families are choosing DC public education than at any point in the past 12 years. Future progress in public education requires that the District continue to invest in high quality public education facilities. This Master Facilities Plan (MFP) will help to ensure that such investments are strategic and efficient and that we prioritize neighborhoods with the greatest need for capital investment. It is, however, only a starting point. The MFP will inform the District’s Capital Improvement Plan, which includes detailed plans for individual schools.

A PROCESS INFORMED BY DATA AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT
The MFP brings together an unprecedented range of data sets to create a comprehensive fact base that policy makers can use to make strategic decisions about facilities allocation over the next five years. Data was collected for all District of Columbia Public School (DCPS) and public charter school facilities open during the 20112012 and 2012-2013 school years, with the exception of alternative and special education facilities. Data was collected to assess need in five key areas: »» »» »» »» »» Capacity and Utilization Population Forecast/Predicted Enrollment Facility Condition and Quality Neighborhood Characteristics (Density of children per acre and average travel distance) Modernization Equity

This fact base was then shared extensively with stakeholders and with a working group of District agency officials and DCPS and charter school leaders. The working group determined priorities for assessing data as well as guiding principles for development of the plan. Based on these priorities and guiding principles, a prioritization framework and a needs model were developed to assess need across all data sets for each neighborhood cluster.

2

VISION
Through the process of extensive stakeholder engagement and data analysis with the working group, the following vision emerged: “Every student in the District of Columbia will have access to high quality facilities and school choices both within his or her neighborhood and throughout the District.”

NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTERS ASSESSED WITH THE HIGHEST NEED
Cluster 2 | Columbia Heights, Mt. Pleasant, Pleasant Plains, Park View Cluster 7 | Shaw, Logan Circle Cluster 18 | Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth Cluster 25 | Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park Cluster 33 | Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning Heights Cluster 36 | Woodland/Fort Stanton, Garfield Heights, Knox Hill Cluster 39 | Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington Highlands

AREAS OF HIGH NEED
To meet the vision of equitable access to facilities of quality, it is essential to identify the areas where the needs for high quality facilities are most significant. The findings of greatest need are categorized by neighborhood cluster. The neighborhood cluster was used as an apolitical geographic unit large enough to include multiple schools (both DCPS and charter) across wards, and small enough to analyze the District at a level that reveals patterns of need across the city. Since the neighborhood cluster has also been used by other studies conducted by the District, the findings of this study can be considered alongside that other work. Neighborhood clusters were deemed to have high facility needs based on a composite score from all measures of need, weighted and analyzed according to the prioritization framework. This framework and data synthesis is described in detail in Chapter 6. The clusters of greatest need are illustrated in a map on page 5. For a full list of all DCPS and charters included in the clusters of greatest need, see page 7.

4

ASSESSMENT OF NEED
COMBINED ASSESSMENT OF NEED

A S S E S S M EN T OF N E E D
De te r m i ni n g t he Com bi ne d Fac i li t y Ne e d s

16

40 10 17 41 18 19

12 11

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

Data Weighting and Ranking of: » Existing Fit › Average GSF per Student Capacity › Average GSF per Student Enrollment › Average Facility Utilization » 2017 Projected Fit › Enrollment Change › Unmet Need › Pre-School Unmet Need » 1998-2012 Modernization Equity › Dollars Spent per Enrolled Student › Dollars Spent per Student Capacity › Dollars Spent per GSF » Neighborhood Characteristics › Average Travel Distance › 2012 School Aged Children per Acre › 2017 School Aged Children per Acre » Facility Condition and Quality › Facility Condition › Facility Quality » Magnitude of Cluster
44 39 43 28 37 9 27

26 33 32 34

36

35

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster
38

Water No DCPS or PCS Schools in Cluster High Need Moderate High Need Moderate Need Moderate Low Need Low Need Public Charter Schools (PCS) District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) DCPS Schools to be Consolidated at the end of 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 School Years

Figure E-1

Public Education MastEr FacilitiEs Plan

The District of Columbia

5

STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS NEEDS
SHORT-TERM STRATEGIES
The following are recommended strategies to address the needs outlined in this plan over the next five years through adjustments to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Some require relatively small investments for short-term gains as follows:

ST3: Pilot facility solutions to support innovative programming.
Throughout both DCPS and charter schools, many school leaders and educators are developing and executing cutting-edge education programs in facilities that do not support innovation. A fund, available to both DCPS and charter schools, should be set up to respond to proposals for facility improvements that support innovative education programming. These small-scale renovations would then be observed and measured for their effectiveness and, if successful, would be used as a model for future modernizations.

ST1: Target capital resources in clusters with the greatest facility need and large, school-aged populations, but low enrollment.
This recommendation focuses on providing a quality school facility for parents and students to choose from in every neighborhood. Investing in DCPS and charter facilities in clusters where students are choosing to enroll outside of the cluster may increase enrollment, while alleviating over-enrollment pressures on other school clusters.

ST4: In clusters forecasted to have school-aged population increases, share underutilized space in DCPS facilities with charter schools, community organizations and others that use space to provide students with access to workforce training.
Demographic projections forecast an increase in schoolaged population. Facilities that are currently underutilized may provide much needed capacity in as little as the next five years. To maximize the facility asset until that need arises, underutilized space could be leased to organizations that support the community and its youth. This form of co-location may also serve to enhance the student experience and provide workforce development opportunities.

ST2: Prioritize modernization of school facilities that serve middle school grades in clusters of greatest need.
Currently, the greatest loss in enrollment for both DCPS and charters is in middle schools. Building the community’s confidence that there will be quality school facilities to serve the surge of students currently enrolled in elementary schools is critical to the growth of the city’s schools. A well-executed modernization program for middle schools would send a clear message to families of the city’s commitment to quality middle school education and may contribute to reversing the current, negative trend.

ST5: Develop best practices and design guidelines for all public education facilities.
The DCPS Design Guidelines were last updated in 2009. Since then, the guidelines have been revised to accommodate school-based health centers, production kitchens in high schools, and centers for teens with families. These guidelines should be revised to further

6

Cluster Number

Cluster Name

DCPS Schools

Charter Schools • AppleTree Early Learning PCS: Columbia Heights • Carlos Rosario International PCS • Cesar Chavez PCS: Bruce Prep Campus • Creative Minds PCS • DC Bilingual PCS: Columbia • DC Bilingual PCS: 14th Street • E.L. Haynes PCS: Georgia Avenue • LAYC Career Academy PCS • Shining Stars Montessori Academy PCS • The Next Step: El Proximo Paso PCS • YouthBuild LAYC PCS • Center City PCS: Shaw Campus • Community Academy PCS: Butler Bilingual • KIPP DC: Grow, Lead, WILL • Bridges PCS • Center City PCS: Petworth Campus • Community Academy PCS: Amos I • Community Academy PCS: Amos II • Community Academy PCS: Online • E.L. Haynes PCS: Kansas Avenue • Hospitality Senior High PCS • Washington Latin PCS: Middle School Campus (Decatur) • Washington Latin PCS: Upper School Campus (Upshur)

Category of Highest Need

2

Columbia Heights, Mt. Pleasant, Pleasant Plains, Park View

• Bancroft Elementary School • Benjamin Banneker Senior High School • Bruce-Monroe Elementary School at Park View • Cardozo Senior High School • Columbia Heights Education Campus • Meyer Elementary School • Tubman Elementary School

• Current capacity significantly below 2017 projected enrollment • Modernization Equity • Neighborhood children travelling long distances to go to school • Facility quality and condition need to be improved

7

Shaw, Logan Circle

• Garrison Elementary School • Seaton Elementary School • Shaw Junior High School

• Current capacity significantly below 2017 projected enrollment • Modernization Equity • Facility quality and condition need to be improved

18

Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth

• Barnard Elementary School • Brightwood Education Campus • MacFarland Middle School • Powell Elementary School • Raymond Education Campus • Roosevelt Senior High School • Sharpe Health School • Truesdell Education Campus • West Education Campus • Capitol Hill Montessori at Logan • Eliot-Hine Middle School • J.O. Wilson Elementary School • Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School • Miner Elementary School • Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster) • Prospect Learning Center • School-Within-A-School at Logan • Stuart-Hobson Middle School (Capitol Hill Cluster) • Washington Metropolitan High School • C.W. Harris Elementary School • Davis Elementary School • Fletcher-Johnson Education Campus • Nalle Elementary School • Plummer Elementary School • Garfield Elementary School • Stanton Elementary School

• Current capacity significantly below 2017 projected enrollment • Modernization Equity • Facility quality and condition need to be improved

25

Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park

• AppleTree Early Learning PCS: Oklahoma Ave. • Friendship PCS: Blow-Pierce Elementary & Middle • Options PCS: Middle and High School • Two Rivers PCS: Upper and Lower

• Current capacity significantly below 2017 projected enrollment • Modernization Equity • Facility quality and condition need to be improved

33

Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning Heights

• KIPP DC: KEY, LEAP, Promise • Maya Angelou PCS: Evans High School • Maya Angelou PCS: Evans Middle • Maya Angelou PCS: Young Adult Learning Center

• Modernization Equity • Neighborhood children travelling long distances to go to school • Facility quality and condition need to be improved • Modernization Equity • Neighborhood children travelling long distances to go to school • Facility quality and condition need to be improved

36

Woodland/Fort Stanton, Garfield Heights, Knox Hill

39

Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington Highlands

• Ballou Senior High School • Ferebee-Hope Elementary School • Hart Middle School • Hendley Elementary School • King Elementary School • M.C. Terrell/McGogney Elementary School • Patterson Elementary School • Simon Elementary School

• Achievement Preparatory Academy PCS • Center City PCS: Congress Heights Campus • Eagle Academy PCS: The Eagle Center at McGoney • Early Childhood Academy PCS: Walter Washington Campus • Friendship PCS: Southeast Elementary Academy • Friendship PCS: Technology Preparatory Academy • Imagine Southeast PCS • National Collegiate Preparatory PCS

• Modernization Equity • Neighborhood children travelling long distances to go to school • Facility quality and condition need to be improved

Figure E-2: Neighborhood Clusters with the Highest Facility Need 7

address standards for pre-K space and to reflect changes in teaching and learning practices required by the DC Common Core Standards. The revision of the DCPS Design Guidelines should draw on lessons learned from the DCPS modernization program, charter school design strategies and best practices in school design.

access. The DC Department of General Services, DCPS, individual charter schools, Public Charter School Board, Office of Planning and Office of the State Superintendent of Education all manage a facet of the data, and each agency collects, stores and maintains its data differently. This data must be consolidated and updated on a regular basis to provide decision makers with the tools to allocate resources more effectively and efficiently.

ST6: Create environments for professional educator collaboration within each school and across DCPS and charter schools.
High quality space for professional collaboration among educators will help create physical environments that attract and retain the best teachers, and support a culture of collaboration and innovation.

ST8: Upgrade the main entrance of every school that is yet to be modernized.
The entrance of a school sets the tone for creating a positive or negative school environment. An entrance that is transparent to the street communicates a welcoming and open atmosphere. An entrance that celebrates student achievement and school culture instills pride in students and the school community. Currently, among the DCPS schools yet to be modernized, facilities consistently received low scores in a category titled “Welcoming Entrance” in the qualitative assessment used in this study. For a relatively small investment, the face of every school yet to be modernized could be transformed, ushering a new era of student and community engagement.

ST7: Establish a consistent and streamlined data collection and management process.
This MFP gathers comprehensive data on the capacity, building conditions and demographic changes of schools and their facilities. Collecting the facilities-related data necessary for the development of this plan showed that data related to school facilities is dispersed across several agencies, not updated regularly and difficult to

8

LONG-TERM STRATEGIES
Some of the recommended strategies for addressing the needs outlined in this MFP reach beyond the five-year horizon of this report. These strategies may demand longer-term planning and may require more interagency coordination in order to be implemented. However, all of them are essential to addressing the systemic issues that have led to some of the most acute needs identified in this report.

LT2: Allow for a school development approach that can include additional site or facility uses.
Where conditions allow, school construction could incorporate additional site or facility uses such as health clinics, co-working space for startup businesses, libraries or senior services. A mixed-use development approach would create opportunities for co-location of uses that support students before and after schools, and enhance learning. It would also help to alleviate some of the financial burden of school construction and maintenance and would maximize the use of facilities outside of the school calendar, such as during the summer months.

LT1: Reassess the phased modernization approach.
The phased modernization approach has successfully improved the quality of the learning environments of a majority of DCPS facilities in a short period of time. Since no Phase 2 modernizations have been completed, there is an opportunity to redefine the phased approach to focus on facility modernizations in clusters of greatest need. Many of these schools are forecasted to have strong enrollment pressure; the building systems, access for people with disabilities and building enclosures must be addressed to accommodate the increased demand.

LT3: As part of each subsequent MFP, convene a working group of stakeholders to assess and refresh the principles that guide the plan.
The working group was an invaluable asset in the formulation of this MFP. In the future, it will be important to continue to have a dialogue with objective stakeholders representing all aspects of public education in the District.

9

10

CHAPTER 1
Master Facility Plan Vision

BACKGROUND
As part of the reform effort, the District has undertaken a substantial rehabilitation program to modernize the physical infrastructure for our public schools since 2008. The District has spent nearly $1.5 billion and completed work at 64 schools, encompassing 7.3 million square feet. The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education conducted individual and small group meetings with public education stakeholders from September 2012 to January 2013 in order to understand the needs for public education facilities. Based on this stakeholder input, the Deputy Mayor’s office developed a series of priorities for schools. The stakeholder meetings brought forth a range of smart, thoughtful and urgent recommendations. Many stakeholders, from students and school leaders to community activists, said we need to do a better job of allocating resources equitably for all students regardless of the ward where a student lives or attends school, and regardless of whether a student attends a District of Columbia Public School (DCPS) school or a charter school. It is the responsibility of the District government to provide access to high quality school facilities to each student residing in the District. Stakeholders also expressed an urgent desire for more community involvement both in the planning process and in the schools themselves. They want to see more integrated services such as community uses and complementary services in school buildings. The stakeholders also would like the facilities to be available for community use after school hours and mixed-use development placed in and around the schools. Most importantly, stakeholders insisted that facility development should follow the demands of educational programs and funding should be more flexible. They want better oversight of spending and easier-to-access financing and facility resources for charter schools. They suggested developing a more supportive framework for DCPS facility modernization, in that DCPS schools needing full renovations and upgrades should receive them at one time rather than through a phased approach over many years.

THE PROBLEM
At present, there is little coordination of school facilities needs with expenditures across all public schools, for both DCPS and charter schools. Currently DCPS is midway through an extensive modernization program that has no direct link to a citywide education program plan. Enrollment is uneven across the District and, as a result, DCPS has now completed a closures and consolidation plan, which will close as many as 15 schools. Additionally, several schools in the DCPS inventory have sat vacant since they were closed in 2008 without a long-term plan for future use or an interim plan for the reuse of these facilities. Many of the schools that remain open are often closed to the broader community. At the same time, the network of charter schools is growing haphazardly. Charter schools open wherever they can find space that is both affordable and sufficient for their needs, and many remain in substandard facilities. Charter schools’ facility needs are not coordinated with DCPS facility plans and conflict at times.

12

Furthermore, charter schools often raise concerns about their lack of access to facilities, but there is no single District entity or mechanism for collecting information about charter school facility conditions or needs. For both DCPS and charter schools, the data for facilities is inconsistent, inaccessible or both. Facility planning and development for schools is fragmented across several District agencies. All of these challenges speak to the central problem: it is nearly impossible to make strategic facility investments without a comprehensive fact base for DCPS and charter school facility needs and without coordination between facilities needs and educational programming. This lack of coordination around facilities perpetuates the conflict between DCPS and charter schools, and requires the District to spend money inefficiently on capital improvements to schools.

VISION
Through the process of extensive stakeholder engagement and the analysis of the data with the working group, the following vision emerged: “Every student in the District of Columbia will have access to high quality facilities and school choices both within his or her neighborhood and throughout the District.” Critical to this vision are improved access and quality. In this plan, access is considered in terms of both geography and capacity. In terms of geography, every student should be able to enroll in a high quality school facility, whether charter or DCPS, preferably in the neighborhood where he or she lives. In terms of capacity, the public education system must have enough facilities to provide all students with access to high quality learning environments.

MISSION STATEMENT
To address these problems, this Master Facilities Plan builds a decision framework for allocating funds efficiently and equitably to meet the needs of every student and family, and every community in the District. To meet this mission, the plan provides policymakers with a comprehensive fact base of school facilities needs across the District and a framework for coordinating and allocating resources strategically based on needs and the priorities of the city and stakeholders. Rather than suggesting how resources could be allocated to building projects, this plan provides guidance on how to use resources for schools based on where they are most needed and will do the most good.

Additionally, high quality public education facilities should serve as resource centers in every community, providing programs and activities for those residents with and without children in the public education system to come together, learn and recreate. Quality is considered as both the capabilities of school buildings to support top-tier programming and the architectural character of the facilities. Every student should have access to quality educational programming and facilities supportive of these great programs. All students, no matter where they live, should have access to a school that is an inspiring place to learn and represents the District’s commitment to education and its pride in its future generations.

13

KEY MAP

DCPS & CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITY LOCATIONS
22 23

D C PS & C HART E R S C HO O L FAC IL I TY L O C ATI O N S
Brookland, Brentwood, Langdon Ivy City, Arboretum, Trinidad, Carver Langston Woodridge, Fort Lincoln, Gateway Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park Capitol Hill, Lincoln Park Near Southeast, Navy Yard Historic Anacostia Eastland Gardens, Kenilworth 34 35 36 30 31 32 33 Mayfair, Hillbrook, Mahaning Heights Deanwood, Burrville, Grant Park, Lincoln Heights, Fairmont Heights River Terrace, Benning, Greenway, Dupont Park Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning Heights Twining, Fairlawn, Randle Highlands, Penn Branch, Fort Davis Park, Fort Dupont Fairfax Village, Naylor Gardens, Hillcrest, Summit Park Woodland/Fort Stanton, Garfield Heights, Knox Hill Sheridan, Barry Farm, Buena Vista Douglas, Shipley Terrace Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington Highlands Walter Reed Rock Creek Park Observatory Circle Saint Elizabeths Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling National Mall, Potomac River National Arboretum, Anacostia River

16

24 25 26 27 28

40 10 17 41 18

29

37 38

19

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

12 11

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6
Cluster Cluster Name Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Kalorama Heights, Adams Morgan, Lanier Heights Columbia Heights, Mt. Pleasant, Pleasant Plains, Park View Howard University, Le Droit Park, Cardozo/ Shaw Georgetown, Burleith/Hillandale West End, Foggy Bottom, GWU Dupont Circle, Connecticut Avenue/K Street Shaw, Logan Circle Downtown, Chinatown, Penn Quarters, Mount Vernon Square, North Capitol Street Southwest Employment Area, Southwest/ Waterfront, Fort McNair, Buzzard Point Hawthorne, Barnaby Woods, Chevy Chase Friendship Heights, American University Park, Tenleytown North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills, Van Ness Spring Valley, Palisades, Wesley Heights, Foxhall Crescent, Foxhall Village, Georgetown Reservoir Cathedral Heights, McLean Gardens, Glover Park Cleveland Park, Woodley Park, Massachusetts Avenue Heights, WoodlandNormanstone Terrace Colonial Village, Shepherd Park, North Portal Estates Takoma, Brightwood, Manor Park Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth Lamont Riggs, Queens Chapel, Fort Totten, Pleasant Hill North Michigan Park, Michigan Park, University Heights Edgewood, Bloomingdale, Truxton Circle, Eckington

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

5

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Schools Present in Cluster Schools Present in Cluster Public Charter Schools (PCS) District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) DCPS Schools to be Consolidated at the end of 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 School Years

Figure 1.1 14

Public Education MastEr FacilitiEs Plan

The District of Columbia

14

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Extensive stakeholder engagement included approximately 40 stakeholder meetings with City Council members, District agency officials, community groups, parents and students, and an intensive, threemonth brainstorming process with a working group of stakeholders. From this public process, the following principles emerged to guide this Master Facilities Plan. They served as the lens through which need was assessed and recommendations were made.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE THREE: ALIGN INVESTMENTS WITH PROJECTED STUDENT DEMAND.
Schedule facility planning and modernization, and locate new schools to inspire confidence in a student’s continuous access to quality schools throughout his or her time in public schools (i.e., feeder patterns). These investments should align with regularly updated student enrollment forecasts and other trends, including schoolaged children population projections.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE ONE: EQUITYFOCUSED PLANNING.
»» »» Provide equitable access to capital resources to meet student needs. Provide both facility and program resources where needed and tie these resources to clear and enforceable accountability measures. Provide full, not phased, modernizations for some DCPS facilities. Encourage mixed-use development to make school modernizations and new construction easier to finance.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOUR: INVEST IN OUR COMMITMENT TO CRADLE-TOCAREER EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES.
Expand access to quality early childhood programs and to workforce training opportunities.

»» »»

GUIDING PRINCIPLE FIVE: INCREASE COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP AMONG SERVICE PROVIDERS.
Strengthen collaboration among District public schools and charter schools through sharing space, knowledge and best practices to improve quality. Embrace partnerships with outside groups, such as museums, universities, community-based organizations and privatesector partners, to increase opportunities for students.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE TWO: BUILD FACILITIES AROUND QUALITY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS.
Ensure school facility design supports educational programs while maximizing flexibility, sustainability, security and community involvement.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE SIX: DESIGN COMMUNITY-CENTERED SCHOOLS.
Design and operate schools as centers of the community that support high quality educational outcomes and encourage a mix of community use, services and programs.

15

LEARNING FROM RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES
The District of Columbia is certainly not alone in facing the difficulties of uneven enrollment, more buildings than needed for the current school population, an aging facility inventory and a desire to provide facilities for both public and charter schools. Numerous school districts across the United States face the same challenges. Therefore, this Master Facilities Plan is shaped by approaches to school planning and design that have succeeded in other parts of the country. These national best practices include the following:

and schools had few specialized spaces to support the variety of enhancement programs and pedagogies now offered to students. Today, students don’t only learn from a teacher lecturing in front of a classroom. They learn through collaborating together in small groups, working on independent projects, conducting research and building learning skills online (just to name a few present-day methods). Therefore, in many cases, District public school facilities are facing a problem where they have a lot of space, but they have the wrong types of space to address contemporary educational models. Public school facilities have too many classrooms and corridors, and not enough places for contemporary learning. By reconfiguring the interior organization of buildings to reduce circulation and increase space for learning, many schools built during the early and mid- 20th century can support 21st-century learning.

RIGHT-SIZE SCHOOLS TO SUPPORT ENROLLMENT AND CONTEMPORARY TEACHING AND LEARNING METHODS.
The average American school is more than 42 years old. Most facilities in many urban school districts were built at the start of the 20th century and after World War II. During both of these periods of intense school building, facilities were sized to support growing student populations and a walkable neighborhood access to facilities. Since then, the school-aged population has declined, high school enrollments have decreased, and neighborhood demographics have changed. All of these changes have left many school districts, like the District of Columbia, burdened with too much space overall and many facilities that are no longer located where the strongest student demand resides. In addition, older schools were designed to support lecture-based teaching. Classroom size was minimized to maximize the number of classrooms in a single building

CREATE A VARIETY OF SPACE SIZES AND TYPES IN MODERNIZED SCHOOLS.
Given the range of learning activities in which students are now engaged, a wider variety of space types and sizes is needed. Planning of school facilities must be more nuanced than simply a classroom count multiplied by student-teacher ratio. There must be space for small group collaboration, project-based work, student presentations to groups larger than 20 or 30, individual consultations with resource teachers and paraprofessionals and, of course, interaction with computer technology. In addition, there must be places to celebrate student

16

work, both complete and in progress; and to “think out loud” in public on both physical writing surfaces and in digital space. All of these spaces are most useful when they are integrated rather than segregated, just as subject matter is becoming more integrated throughout the curriculum. Schedules are changing from short, regimented periods to longer blocks that allow students to become more immersed in learning and engaged in multiple learning activities. Students and teachers want to be able to move seamlessly from one activity to another. Rather than becoming masters of content, students are being asked to become master learners with deep understanding of key concepts used to absorb knowledge throughout their life. All of this learning

cannot be done at a desk in a 600-square-foot or even a 900-square-foot classroom.

SUPPORT LEARNING IN COMMUNITIES.
Research has shown that students perform better in smaller schools. But in large urban school districts, small schools in stand-alone buildings, particularly at the middle school and high school level, are not economically feasible. Even so, the most important aspects of these schools can be replicated by creating smaller communities of learners, both student and teacher, within larger schools. These smaller communities are variously called “schools within schools,” “academies,” “small learning communities,” “personal learning communities,” “educational houses,” or simply “learning communities.” Although each of these types embraces a

17

slightly different approach, all are based on the idea that students learn best when they have a strong connection to educators, strong relationships with fellow students and feel known and valued - all hallmarks of small schools. Moreover, teachers also excel when they feel known and valued, and can collaborate with peers and learn from them. A recent study in the Stanford Journal of Social Innovation showed a tremendous increase in teacher performance when teachers could collaborate with highperforming peers. The DCPS Design Guidelines call for student learning communities in various forms at all grade levels and professional learning communities. This plan recommends that these communities should be supported by the design of the school building and given a physical presence. The Educational Facilities Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI) measured the extent to which learning communities are supported by facilities and have a physical presence in the school.

18

CHAPTER 2
Master Facility Plan Process

PROJECT COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH
The nearly year-long process of this Master Facilities Plan was designed to meet three goals: »» Assemble a comprehensive fact base for all public education facilities, both DC Public Schools (DCPS) and charter schools, to inform strategic decisionmaking. Seek the input, values and priorities of as many public education stakeholders as possible. Develop a regular, ongoing process for assessing facility needs and establishing funding priorities. decisionmakers to regularly assess need and the progress of the District in meeting the vision of the plan. The prioritization framework and needs model is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6. The Master Facilities Plan involved collaboration among educational stakeholders for both DCPS and charter schools, elected officials, District residents and non-profit organizations. The planning team also worked closely with an Executive Committee comprised of leaders from the DC Department of General Services, Public Charter School Board and District of Columbia Public Schools who offered guidance, support and vision. Five meetings were held with the Interagency Working Group in order to review the data and establish guiding principles for the Master Facilities Plan.

»» »»

To meet the first goal, the Master Plan team worked closely with the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education (DME), DC Office of Planning (OP), DC Department of General Services (DGS) and representatives of DCPS and charter schools to assemble previously disparate sets of data into a unified, comprehensive fact base. The data collected, methods of analysis and limitations of the data are all discussed in this chapter under the heading Data Sets. To meet the second goal, an extensive communications and outreach strategy was developed to notify stakeholders of the planning process and provide accurate information about the plan. This process also solicited feedback on the values and priorities that should drive the plan and is described in this chapter under Project Communications and Outreach. To meet the third goal of a regular process, a thorough prioritization framework and needs model were designed to assess need based on 14 different measures. The needs model includes measures from the data available in the current fact base and also outlines data points that should be gathered and measured in future plans. The needs model can also be used as a tool by
20

STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
The Deputy Mayor for Education (DME) engaged community stakeholders at the onset of the process to disseminate accurate information about the Master Facilities Plan, generate dialogue about the plan and increase stakeholder investment in the process. Through these stakeholder meetings, the DME collected an extensive list of criteria that the community deems important to facilities decisions. In addition to community stakeholders, the DME and Master Plan team consulted individual District of Columbia Council members at the onset of the process to understand the key issues the plan should address and the priorities of their constituents.

WORKING GROUP
The DME organized an Interagency Working Group to help prioritize the criteria generated during the stakeholder meetings and to provide clear and sound advice throughout the plan development process. This group was comprised of representatives from the State Board of Education, DCPS, PCSB and DME’s Executive Committee for Capital Investments (which includes representatives from OP, DGS, Office of Budget and Finance, and DME). Ginnie Cooper, Chief Librarian of DC Public Library, chaired the group, bringing her wealth of experience overseeing library capital investment projects. The group met five times from September to December 2012 to review project data, consider the criteria collected during the meetings and establish guiding principles for the Master Facilities Plan.

This phase of the process focused on attaining the following outcomes: »» Identifying a Shared Value Proposition – Through small group discussion, the members of the newly established and diverse working group realized they shared many ideas on what an improved DC public education system could look like. Sparking Creativity and Innovation – By offering initial ideas in a free flow manner, each group of stakeholders felt its view point was heard, not crowded out. This method also gave stakeholders the flexibility to be creative in solving a large-scale problem. It helped extend their views beyond the current plans and processes to focus on key recommendations for the future . The suggestions became a critical element of long-range, five-year planning, as opposed to immediate short-term tactical solutions. Establishing a Solution-Oriented Mindset – A portion of the discussion focused on answering, “How do we get there?” This question helped to orient the group towards its objective of answering, “What could/should the District be doing?” Enhancing Team Dynamics – The small groups opened the lines of communication and understanding among members who were unfamiliar with each other. They helped engender trust and respect as a part of collaborative decisionmaking.

»»

»»

DEVELOPING THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FRAMEWORK
Members of the Interagency Working Group collaborated to generate a framework of proposed areas for the District to focus on over the next five years in its effort to improve public schools.

»»

CLUSTERING BRAINSTORMING “WHAT’S THE VISION”
During the first meeting, the DME tasked the working group to think about a grand vision for DC public education. The working group divided into three groups for this brainstorming exercise and each shared their best answers to the question, “What might our network of public schools (DCPS and charter) look like in 2020 and how do we get there?” Ideas captured from the first working group meeting were consolidated and analyzed by the consulting team to identify clusters of similar themes expressed by the larger group. The themes were evaluated for linkages to facilities planning. This effort was structured to narrow and capture ideas that a Master Facilities Plan could suggest in an effort to improve DC public education.

22

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
“What matters most?”

DATA SETS

“What does the data tell us?”
FACILITY CONDITION & QUALITY

GEOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT
“Where are the needs greatest?”

1 2 3

Facility Condition

Charter Facility E cacy Survey $ per Enrolled Student

EFEI $ per GSF $ per Student Capacity

Modernization Equity Indicator of Need

DEMOGRAPHICS

4 5 6 7

Forecast Enrollment Change Mobility Rate

Forecast Unmet Need No. of School Aged Children per Acre

CAPACITY
Avg GSF per Enrolled Student Avg GSF per Student Capacity Average Utilization

THE LENS

THE FACTS

THE NEEDS ACROSS THE CITY

Figure 2.1: Guiding Principles establish a framework to view the data in a certain way.

DEFINING AND REFINING THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
During the second meeting, the working group had the opportunity to review and react to an initial Straw Man Decision Framework. The idea behind this decisionmaking concept is to develop an initial set of ideas to solve a problem and subject them to critical analysis and testing. The feedback received during this meeting helped to develop a much stronger set of principles to guide the next stage of the planning process. Working group members collectively agreed that “language matters” when addressing a topic as nuanced as public education and they requested an opportunity

to discuss and address key topics of relevance up front to be sure all participants were starting with a common understanding of the issues. As a result, the meeting structure was amended to encourage deeper discussion among the working group members to define and shape the principles behind the Master Facilities Plan, from improving classrooms to transforming schools into community assets.

INTEGRATING THE TECHNICAL MEMOS
Working group members were also tasked with reviewing a series of technical memos during their second, third and fourth meetings. These reports and maps helped articulate the current state of school facilities and current

23

and future population trends in DC. Working group members reviewed and discussed each memo, then responded to select questions. They also refined the principles guiding the Master Facilities Plan.

The software applied the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a decisionmaking technique that helped participants prioritize the guiding principles. This structured and rational framework allows working group members to set priorities using a tool called “pairwise comparisons.” By placing two guiding principles sideby-side, this tool allowed working group members to evaluate which principle is more important to them and how strongly they feel about its importance. Evaluations were marked using a rating scale of 1 to 9, 1 being equal and 9 being extreme. The working group members’ ratings were translated through the software into numerical values used to prioritize the guiding principles.

INTEGRATING THE STAKEHOLDER MEETING COMMENTS
Before the third meeting, working group members were provided notes from the extensive stakeholder meetings. They were provided an opportunity to ask clarifying questions and incorporate additional ideas and criteria. Specific language was refined to capture and effectively articulate the ideas of the working group. Finally, working group members agreed upon and validated a final version of the guiding principles (see full list in Chapter 4). With this task completed, the group transitioned into the process of prioritizing the guiding principles.

PRIORITIZED LIST OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The prioritized guiding principles can be leveraged as a reference point for future decisions around facilities planning, including: »» »» »» Identifying geographic areas most in need of attention and resources. Determining the types of solutions or capital investments to target. Capturing and integrating the perspectives of both DCPS and Public Charter School working group members within the planning framework.

PRIORITIZING THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
During the fifth and final meeting, the working group integrated use of a software program called Decision Lens into the process to help prioritize the guiding principles of the Master Facilities Plan. Decision Lens allows multiple and diverse stakeholders to come together and evaluate key decisions through a transparent process. This software assists with group decisionmaking even when it is more strategic, subjective or intangible than a simple “yes” or “no.”

24

RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS STUDIES
2008 AND 2010 DCPS FACILITY MASTER PLANS
The DCPS’s 2010 Master Plan builds on the foundations established in the 2008 master plan. It sets forth a continuous, phased approach to school modernization with the goal of tending to every school as quickly as possible so that learning environments are improved. The guiding principles from the 2008/2010 DCPS Master Facilities Plans are: »» »» »» »» Modernize and enhance classrooms. Ensure buildings support programs. Accommodate emerging or existing feeder patterns and enrollment trends. Leverage the school as a community asset.

Phase Two - Support Spaces
The second phase of modernizations focuses on strengthening the support components within a school, including computer labs, auditoriums, grounds, gymnasiums and locker rooms. These spaces must be renovated to support a full range of extra-curricular offerings that help create a well-rounded educational environment.

Phase Three - Facility Components
This phase extends the life of each school facility through upgrades to building systems, such as electrical wiring and heating and cooling equipment.

High School Modernizations
All high schools and other select facilities are upgraded through comprehensive modernization, which combines all three phases within one effort.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
Based on the 2010 Master Plan, the District government began a phased approach to DCPS school modernizations to accelerate construction and maximize impact on the learning environment. This phased approach continues today. The modernization program is funded through the annual Capital Improvement Plan, which selects projects to move forward and funds them.

IFF STUDY
In 2011, the Deputy Mayor for Education commissioned IFF, a non-profit consultant and community finance organization, to assess the quality of education options available to families in different parts of the District. This study analyzed the gap between enrollment and access to high performing schools to understand where additional capacity in high quality schools was needed most. The results of the analysis highlighted 10 neighborhood clusters of the District with the greatest need for high quality seats. The study is a point-in-time analysis and provides a starting point for looking at student needs through a geographic lens. It is not the foundation for the Master Facilities Plan, but provides a basis for comparing the capital needs of District schools with the areas of greatest need for more high quality programs.

Phase One - Academic Spaces
The basic areas to be updated during a Phase One modernization include core academic classrooms, corridors, entry lobbies and rest rooms.

25

DCPS CONSOLIDATION AND REORGANIZATION PLAN
The District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) began a reevaluation of their boundaries and consolidation needs in November 2012. The DCPS planning process is separate from this Master Facilities Plan. DCPS and DME have worked together to share data and maintained open lines of communication to make effective decisions to support quality educational outcomes in the District. The consolidations are reflected in the prioritization framework (Chapter 6) of this master plan.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Throughout this report, elementary schools in the DCPS and charter school inventory are used for comparison because they are represented more evenly throughout the District, their capacity is more consistent between DCPS and charters, and they represent the entry point into the public education system.

DATA SETS
The Master Facilities Plan is based on data collected from all over the District. The plan considers the priorities set forth by the guiding principles and working group in assessing need to improve DCPS and charter school facilities across the District at the neighborhood cluster level.

GEOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT
NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER LEVEL ANALYSIS
The geographic unit for the Master Facilities Plan fact base is the neighborhood cluster. These 46 clusters, defined by the District of Columbia Office of Planning (OP), are used for community planning purposes by the District and generally define recognizable neighborhoods (Figure 2.2). The Master Facilities Plan relies on the neighborhood cluster as the key geographic unit to provide consistency between this study and others undertaken by the District; to examine the entire city at a scale that is small enough to determine meaningful differences in the data sets across the neighborhood clusters; and to utilize politically neutral geographic boundaries and geographic units that are not unique to DCPS or charter schools.

CAPACITY
School capacity numbers were obtained from DCPS and charter schools. When unavailable, a proxy for charter school capacity numbers was created by combining the charter enrollment numbers plus the additional open seats available for each school (as reported by each individual charter school).

ENROLLMENT
Enrollment data for both DCPS and charters was gathered from the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) October 2011 Audited Enrollment.

UTILIZATION
Cluster utilization was determined by averaging each school’s utilization rate within the cluster. Each school’s utilization rate was determined by dividing its enrollment by its capacity.

26

KEY MAP

DCPS & CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITY LOCATIONS
22 23

D C PS & CHARTE R S C HO O L FAC ILI TY L O C ATI O N S
Brookland, Brentwood, Langdon Ivy City, Arboretum, Trinidad, Carver Langston Woodridge, Fort Lincoln, Gateway Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park Capitol Hill, Lincoln Park Near Southeast, Navy Yard Historic Anacostia Eastland Gardens, Kenilworth 34 35 36 30 31 32 33 Mayfair, Hillbrook, Mahaning Heights Deanwood, Burrville, Grant Park, Lincoln Heights, Fairmont Heights River Terrace, Benning, Greenway, Dupont Park Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning Heights Twining, Fairlawn, Randle Highlands, Penn Branch, Fort Davis Park, Fort Dupont Fairfax Village, Naylor Gardens, Hillcrest, Summit Park Woodland/Fort Stanton, Garfield Heights, Knox Hill Sheridan, Barry Farm, Buena Vista Douglas, Shipley Terrace Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington Highlands Walter Reed Rock Creek Park Observatory Circle Saint Elizabeths Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling National Mall, Potomac River National Arboretum, Anacostia River

16

24 25 26 27 28

40 10 17 41 18

29

37 38

19

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

12 11

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6
Cluster Cluster Name Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Kalorama Heights, Adams Morgan, Lanier Heights Columbia Heights, Mt. Pleasant, Pleasant Plains, Park View Howard University, Le Droit Park, Cardozo/ Shaw Georgetown, Burleith/Hillandale West End, Foggy Bottom, GWU Dupont Circle, Connecticut Avenue/K Street Shaw, Logan Circle Downtown, Chinatown, Penn Quarters, Mount Vernon Square, North Capitol Street Southwest Employment Area, Southwest/ Waterfront, Fort McNair, Buzzard Point Hawthorne, Barnaby Woods, Chevy Chase Friendship Heights, American University Park, Tenleytown North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills, Van Ness Spring Valley, Palisades, Wesley Heights, Foxhall Crescent, Foxhall Village, Georgetown Reservoir Cathedral Heights, McLean Gardens, Glover Park Cleveland Park, Woodley Park, Massachusetts Avenue Heights, WoodlandNormanstone Terrace Colonial Village, Shepherd Park, North Portal Estates Takoma, Brightwood, Manor Park Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth Lamont Riggs, Queens Chapel, Fort Totten, Pleasant Hill North Michigan Park, Michigan Park, University Heights Edgewood, Bloomingdale, Truxton Circle, Eckington

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

5

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Schools Present in Cluster Schools Present in Cluster Public Charter Schools (PCS) District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) DCPS Schools to be Consolidated at the end of 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 School Years

Figure 2.2

Public Education MastEr FacilitiEs Plan

The District of Columbia

27

POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT FORECAST
The District of Columbia Office of Planning (OP) provided multiple sources of demographic data described below: Historical 2000 and 2010 US Census data was provided, including information on population, race and ethnicity, gender, age cohorts, households, families, income, educational attainment, birth and fertility rates, death and survival rates. OP updated the population and age cohort estimates to 2012 to reflect post-US Census interim survey projections. Population forecasts for the 46 neighborhood clusters in the District of Columbia from 2012 to 2022 were prepared by the DC Office of Planning’s State Planning Center with assistance from its citywide planning division. The population forecasts were based on the combination of extrapolating population cohort changes and adding projected changes in residential development activity (housing units) planned through 2022. The cohort component method forecasts population change as a function of the present (baseline) population and factors for three components of demographic change over time, focusing on fertility, mortality and migration. Tracking future development activity (housing) by cluster as an added stimulant to population change was categorized in four stages of development: 2010 to 2015 data records completed or under construction projects; 2015 to 2020 are projects in the planning pipeline expected to deliver by 2020; 2020 to 2025 include conceptual projects; and 2020 to 2030 project conditions comprising larger neighborhood conceptual projects (i.e. St. Elizabeths, Hill East, McMillan Reservoir, etc.). Each project was coded based on specific characteristics,

primarily being single family houses versus, multifamily housing and rental versus ownership, and assigned an estimated number of children and adults.

DEFINITION OF SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN
To get a sense of the number of children who may attend public schools in the future, this report utilizes population forecasts for “school-aged children.” School-aged children are defined as children from ages 3-18 years old. Within this group, cohorts for each school type have been defined as follows: »» »» »» Elementary school: ages 3-11 Middle school: ages 12-14 High school: ages 15-18

The population forecasts predict only the number of children ages 3-18 that will reside in the District of Columbia based on a number of indicators, including but not limited to: fertility rates, birth rates, mortality rates, infant deaths, life expectancy, migration patterns, life-style characteristics, etc. It should be noted that historical data for school-aged children from 2000 and 2010 is based on past available cohort age groups, which have been defined as 5-9, 10-14 and 15-17. Notwithstanding that the vast majority of potential school enrollment is derived from traditionally defined neighborhood-based age cohorts, actual total enrollment often differs to a degree from population forecasts. Total enrollment includes groups unaccounted for in the population forecast as follows: »» »» Students in adult education programs. Children who may not be permanent DC residents or, in some cases, do not reside in the District, but are enrolled in DCPS or charters.

28

FACILITY CONDITION
The information regarding the physical state of schools reflects the average state of repair of DCPS facilities on a neighborhood cluster basis. It is derived from the facility assessments in the 2008 Master Plan, which was the last reliable data point for all DCPS facilities at the time of printing.

FACILITY EFFICACY
Part of the plan studies the adequacy of select DCPS and charter school facilities in supporting educational programming. This sample of schools offers a way to identify patterns of need that could guide future investments in modernization. For a more detailed discussion of the data and methodology of the facility efficacy study, see Chapter 5.

FACILITY QUALITY
The information about the average suitability and architectural quality of school facilities on a neighborhood cluster basis comes from a detailed survey of facility quality for charters and the modernization phase of the DCPS schools. Given that the focus of Phase 1 modernizations was improvement of the learning environment, this study assumed that modernization improved facility quality. For a more detailed discussion of the data and methodology of the facility condition and quality studies, see Chapter 5.

Facility efficacy was analyzed together with the facility condition and quality studies to provide an overall view of the characteristics of current public education facilities in the District, based on the data available. In addition to questions about the relative state of repair and quality of facilities, the average distance student travel to school and the distribution of modernization funding were analyzed across the District on a neighborhood cluster basis. This study was undertaken to determine the relationship of facility quality and condition to enrollment patterns and to understand funding patterns to date.

29

CLUSTER ENROLLMENT PARTICIPATION
Facility condition and quality affect the safety and comfort of students and educators, and can limit programming. They may also influence parent and student perceptions about school quality. In this context, an analysis of the number of students who enroll in schools in the neighborhood cluster where they live was undertaken by comparing the number of students enrolled in the cluster to the number of students who live in the cluster and are enrolled in public education.

FACILITY GRADE BANDING
For the purposes of this Facilities Master Plan both DCPS and charters will be described with the following types: »» »» »» »» »» Elementary School (ES) - Grades Pre-School (PS), Pre-K (PK) to Fifth Grade Middle School (MS) - Sixth to Eighth Grade High School (HS) - Ninth to Twelfth Grade Education Campus 1 (EC1) - PS to Eighth Grade Education Campus 2 (EC2) - PS to Twelfth Grade

EQUITY
The working group stressed the importance of understanding how modernization has been funded to date and ensuring that funding is equitable moving forward. To that end, both the dollars spent on DCPS facility improvements (modernization, stabilization, new construction) from the start of the modernization program in 1998 to 2012 was mapped by neighborhood cluster. Unfortunately, no data was available on charter facility improvement expenditures. The facility allowance provided by the District to charters was an unreliable data point over the time period 1998 to 2012, since the allowance is tied to enrollment and enrollment fluctuates over time. In addition, facility allowances may be used in many different ways by charters.

30

CHAPTER 3
Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization

ADEQUATE SPACE TO SUPPORT QUALITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS PREMISE
The Master Facilities Plan is meant to guide strategic facilities improvements so the District can provide families with a choice of high quality schools close to their homes. Currently, District families have many school choices outside of their neighborhoods, including charter schools and a variety of DC Public Schools (DCPS). This aim of the Master Facilities Plan is aligned with many existing District policies, including the following: »» The Mayor’s initiative of “One City, One Future,” ensuring every child in every neighborhood has access to high quality facilities. The policy of high quality school facilities contributing to the quality of the neighborhood. The concept of high quality school facilities, both DCPS and charter schools, supporting high quality education programs and offering parents more choices regardless of their income or access to transportation.

PURPOSE
This chapter on Capacity and Utilization concentrates on how much space is available, how many students are in the public education system and how much space is utilized by students. Specifically, the Capacity and Utilization chapter answers the following questions: »» »» »» »» »» »» Where and how many students attend DCPS and charter schools? What is the current capacity of charter and DCPS school facilities? Is there alignment between facility capacity and student enrollment? How much space is being utilized to support current enrollment? How many students could be served in the current space? Is space located appropriately to meet current demand?

»» »»

32

CAPACITY BY CLUSTER

COMBINED AND CHARTER SCHOOLS: MS Co m bi n e dDCPS D C PS an d C h ar ter E l emen tES, a r y, MAND i d d lHS e and

C A PAC I TY BY C L U S TE R
H i g h S c h o o l s an d E d u c a t i o n a l Ca mp u s
DCPS school capacity numbers were obtained from DCPS. Charter School capacity numbers were obtained from PCSB. When not available, a proxy for Charter School capacity numbers was created by combining the Charter School enrollment numbers plus the addiƟonal open seats available for each school (as reported by each individual charter school).
10 17 41 19 16

40

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Schools Present in Cluster 1-1000 Students 1001-2000 Students 2001-3000 Students 3001-4000 Students 4001-5000 Students

Figure 3.1

>5001 Students

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

33

SPACE PER STUDENT
To understand the fit between student enrollment and the space available in facilities, the gross square feet per student based on current enrollment and capacity was analyzed (Figure 3.2). Gross square feet (GSF) was used as opposed to net square feet (NSF) or assignable square feet (ASF) so that a comparison could be made between the total space available in facilities, regardless of the efficiency of design or use of space. The significance of GSF per student is both programmatic and financial. If GSF per student is too low, facilities may not have the space to support education programming, particularly specialties like art, music, science and athletics. If GSF per student is too high, the District of Columbia is paying to maintain and operate more building area than is needed. Given the specialized space needs of DCPS special education and adult education facilities, this analysis focuses on DCPS elementary schools, middle schools, high schools and the few education campuses. For charter schools, the analysis focuses on elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, PK/K-8 education campuses and PK/K-12 education campuses, and it excludes special education and adult education facilities given their specialized space needs. When looking at GSF per student, it is important to note that the GSF per student tends to increase for middle school and high schools, as spaces like large gymnasiums and associated support spaces become more prevalent. Gymnasiums require more GSF although they do not tend to increase a school’s capacity because of their occasional use. Charter schools typically do not have access to such large spaces, so the GSF per student tends to be based on more efficient spaces like classrooms. »» ›› ›› ›› »» ›› Additionally, given the wide range of education programming in the District in both DCPS and charter schools, there is not a single GSF per student that is ideal or appropriate for every school. However, GSF per student puts all schools on equal footing regardless of academic program, how they were designed or are being used currently. Furthermore, benchmark data is available for GSF per student from the DCPS Design Guidelines and other school districts, allowing for comparisons.

DCPS
The average GSF per enrolled student breaks down by school type as follows (Figure 3.3): »» Elementary School: 243 SF/student: ›› DCPS Standard for New Construction and Modernization1 150 SF/ student National Average2: 77-147 SF/ student

Middle School: 436 SF / student: ›› DCPS Standard for New Construction and Modernization : 170 SF/ student National Average 114-212 SF/ student ES-MS Education Campus: 256 SF/student ES-HS Education Campus: 270 SF/ student

High School: 408 SF / student ›› ›› DCPS Standard for New Construction and Modernization : 192 SF/ student National Average 123-211 SF/ student

1 Design Guidelines | District of Columbia Public Schools, 2009, pg 2000-1 2 Wohlers, Art. “Gross Square Feet per Student”, Council of Education Facilities Planners, Issuetrak, November 2005.

34

GSF per Enrolled Student v. v. GSF GSF per GSF per Enrolled Student per Student StudentCapacity Capacity
650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

DCPS

PCS

SF per Enrolled Student

SF per Student Capacity

Figure 3.2

DCPS Analysis
All school types on average are well above the GSF per student identified in DCPS design guidelines. This finding suggests that either the inventory is unaligned with current enrollment or there are significant issues with the efficiency of building designs. This issue is particularly acute for middle schools. Although DCPS has only 13 middle schools and only 4,759 DCPS students enrolled in these stand alone middle schools (grades 6-8), it dedicates 1.8 million GSF to middle school education. There is more space per student in middle schools than any other type of school.

CHARTER SCHOOLS
Given the range of space needed to support the wide variety of charter education programs, it is difficult to develop a meaningful average GSF per student nationally. However, it is useful to examine the amount of space available per student for reference. The statistical average (mean) SF per enrolled student by grade configuration is as follows (Figure 3.3): »» »» »» »» »» Elementary School: 114 SF/student Middle School: 121 SF / student ES-MS Education Campus: 143 SF/student ES-HS Education Campus: 202 SF/ student High School 155 SF / student

35

DCPS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS COMBINED AND COMPARED
Charter facilities range from purpose-built new schools to leased commercial space and former DCPS schools to meet a wide range of educational programming with differential spatial needs. However, charter schools on a GSF per student basis are operating between 25 percent to 50 percent less space per student than is the case with DCPS schools.

ENROLLMENT
Between 2001 and 2008, total enrollment decreased by more than 2,000 students but increased by more than 5,000 students from 2009 to 2011. From 2001 to 2011, the charter schools’ share of total enrollment has increased from 14 percent to more than 38 percent in 2011 (Figure 3.4). DCPS has the greatest share of elementary and high school students, while charter schools have the greatest share of ES-MS education campuses (Figure 3.5).

Average GSF per Enrolled Student
School Types by Space per Enrolled Student
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

High Low Range Average

GSF per Enrolled Student

DC

PS

Ele

r nta me

y D CP

i SM

dd

le P DC DC P

SH

igh cat io

am nC P

pu

s1 io

du SE

Figure 3.3 36

DC

du SE

cat

am nC

pu

s2 SE

PC

e lem

r nta

y PC

i SM

dd

le

S PC PC

Hig

h io am nC PC

pu

s1 cat io

du SE

cat

am nC

pu

s2

du SE

Comparison of Enrollment between DCPS and Charter Schools

Figure 3.4

Comparison of Enrollment by Grade between DCPS and Charter Schools

Figure 3.5

37

UTILIZATION
From Grade 5 to Grade 6, DCPS enrollment significantly dips according to the October 2011 Enrollment Audit in contrast to an increase in charter school enrollment for the same grades (Figure 3.5). There are 668 fewer students enrolled in DCPS Grade 6 than in Grade 5 and 469 more students enrolled in charters Grade 6 than in charters Grade 5. This data suggests that there is a noticeable shift from DCPS to charter schools at the transition from elementary to middle school. This shift may account for part of the under-utilization of DCPS middle school inventory and the over-utilization of charter schools’ middle school inventory. Together, DCPS and charters lost nearly 200 students between Grades 5 and 6 in 2011. Enrollment significantly jumps from Grade 8 to Grade 9 in both DCPS and charter schools. The increase is considerable in DCPS schools, where there were 1,349 more students in Grade 9 than in Grade 8. For charter schools, there were 146 more students in Grade 9 than in Grade 8. Elementary and middle schools are well utilized for both DCPS and charter schools, at 78 percent utilization and 91 percent utilization respectively. The combination of elementary and middle schools in (combined) ES-MS campuses is also more efficient on SF/student basis. Given the excess capacity in the DCPS middle school inventory, utilization drops dramatically in DCPS middle schools. Interestingly, DCPS utilization for middle schools drops to 53 percent and charter school utilization jumps to 82 percent. Correlating this misalignment between facility capacity at the middle school level and enrollment with a grade cohort analysis, the data suggests that there is a shift from DCPS to charters during the middle school years. Although average utilization for both DCPS and charters shows a reasonable match between capacity and enrollment District-wide, at 75 percent and 85 percent respectively, there is wide variation among school types and neighborhood clusters. Figure 3.8 demonstrates the wide variation in utilization between neighborhood clusters in the District’s schools to suggest there are enough seats in total, but the seats are not located in the right places to meet current demand.

38

ENROLLMENT BY CLUSTER
To t a l Enro l l m e n t s

COMBINED AND CHARTER SCHOOLS: Co m bi n e dDCPS D C PS an d C h ar ter S c h o o l ES, MS AND HS

E NRO L L M EN T B Y C L U S TE R
Enrollment data for both DCPS and Charter Schools was gathered from the Office of the State Superintendant of Educa�on (OSSE) October 2011 Audited Enrollment.

16

40 10 17 41 19

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Schools Present in Cluster 1-750 Students 751-1500 Students 1501-2250 Students 2251-3000 Students 3001-3750 Students >3751 Students

Figure 3.6

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

39

UTILIZATION BY CLUSTER

COMBINED AND CHARTER SCHOOLS: MS Co m bi n e dDCPS D CPS and C h ar ter E l emen tES, a r y, MAND i d d lHS e and

U T ILI ZATI ON B Y C L U S TE R
H i g h S c h o o l s a n d E d u c a t i o n a l Ca mp u s es
Cluster u�liza�on was determined by taking each school’s enrollment and dividing by the facility’s capacity. DCPS enrollment numbers are from the Office of the State Superintendant of Educa�on (OSSE) and Charter School Enrollment numbers obtained from Public Charter School Board (PCSB). DCPS school capacity numbers obtained from DCPS. Charter School capacity numbers obtained from PCSB. When not available, a proxy for Charter School capacity numbers was created by combining the Charter School enrollment
11 20 2 14 42 15 1 3 21 22 10 17 41 19 16

40

12

18

13

24

numbers plus the addi�onal open seats available for each school (as reported by each individual charter school).

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Schools Present in Cluster 1-25% U�liza�on 26-50% U�liza�on 51-75% U�liza�on 76-100% U�liza�on >100% U�liza�on

Figure 3.7 40

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

40

FINDINGS
ENROLLMENT
Enrollment is fluid and dynamic. Although enrollment has decreased in recent years, enrollment trends projected for the next three to eight years may put new pressures on both DCPS and charter schools. DCPS and charter enrollment dips considerably between Grades 5 and 6, suggesting that students and families are leaving the public education system at the middle school level. Charter capacity and enrollment are condensed within the central and northern parts of the city (clusters 21, 18, 2, and east of the Anacostia River), even as school-aged population is expected to grow citywide.

CAPACITY
There is an excess of approximately 17,600 seats in the active DCPS inventory. This number includes buildings that have recently been proposed for consolidation, but does not include buildings that are currently used for non-instructional purposes. Adding the capacity from buildings that are vacant or used for some other purpose, there is a total of 23,500 seats in the total DCPS inventory (based on 2011 audited enrollment data).

School Types by Utilization Utilization by School Types
170 150 140 130 120 110 100 GSF Utilization 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

High Low Range Average

DC

E PS

e lem

r nta

y DC

M PS

idd

le P DC DC P

SH

igh cat io

am nC CP

pu

s1

du SE

D

du SE

io cat

am nC

pu

s2 SE

PC

e lem

r nta

y P M CS

idd

le

S PC PC

Hig

h

du SE

io cat

p am nC PC

us

1 am nC

pu

s2

du SE

io cat

Figure 3.8

41

Enrollment v. Capacity with Utilization Average

Figure 3.9

There is capacity for approximately 7,300 students in charter schools (based on charter self-reported capacities and available slots). A challenge is to find more strategic ways to distribute capacity geographically and between DCPS and charters so that capacity aligns with demand, while also preparing for future increases in enrollment.

than enough seats in total, but they are not in the right places or do not align with current demand. For example, some neighborhood clusters are well over capacity – as much 137 percent utilized, while others are as low as 35 percent utilized. Among the most common school types (elementary schools, middle schools, K-8 education campuses, and high schools), middle school utilization is the lowest at 52 percent for DCPS and 86 percent for charter schools. The highest DCPS utilization among the most common school types is elementary schools at 81 percent and the highest charter school utilization is high schools at 94 percent.

UTILIZATION
Although average utilization for both DCPS and charters shows a reasonable match between capacity and enrollment District-wide, at 75 percent and 85 percent respectively, utilization on a school-by-school basis varies widely. This data suggests that there are more

42

OPPORTUNITIES
Meetings with the working group examined the possibility of a framework developed for the strategic matching of charter schools with available DCPS space around the city, where charter school education programming and grade configuration complement a DCPS need. Discussions with community members and the working group also focused on encouraging more mixed-use facility planning, development, and operation to take advantage of community and education-related building uses outside of DCPS and charter schools. Creative short-term leases for partner agencies, community organizations, or even small businesses would absorb excess building area while activating the facility outside of traditional school hours. This approach to facilities could enrich DCPS or charter school programming, offset facility costs and help absorb excess capacity now, without relinquishing capacity permanently, so that capacity is available when enrollment increases. Some community members and even students requested a focus on job training and skill development. Organizations that lease space could be required to consider internships and mentoring opportunities for public education students. These types of partnerships could create jobs and economic opportunity in local communities. When enrollment increases, the lease can be terminated and capacity recaptured.

43

Summary Table of Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization by School Type

Figure 3.10

44

45

CHAPTER 4
Population and Enrollment Forecast

UNDERSTANDING THE FUTURE OF STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN THE DISTRICT PREMISES
The following premises and assumptions frame the data that was collected, methods of analyses and questions explored in this chapter: »» Both charter schools and DCPS are best located in the areas where there is an existing or forecasted high concentration of children. Based on this premise, this report analyzes school-age demographics geographically to understand their potential impact on school facilities. The forecasted enrollment is assumed at today’s share of the total school-aged population. The Master Facilities Plan analyzes whether sufficient capacity in high quality facilities exists for all children, whether in DCPS or charter schools. Therefore, the total capacity of DCPS and charter schools combined is compared to the total number of school-aged children expected in future years. This analysis does not forecast the future enrollment share between DCPS and charters. The Master Plan’s first priority is to address current school capacity. The second and parallel priority is to consider near-term anticipated changes in demand. In this analysis, these shifts respond to demographic patterns that are forecast through the next five years (to 2017). The third priority is to study potential longer term demographic patterns, which, by definition, become more speculative as they shift from historically anchored characteristics. Finally, while the demand for school facilities relates to parental decisions about educational experiences and services, this Master Facilities Plan does not address such school choices. »»

PURPOSE
This part of the Master Facilities Plan further establishes a baseline of neighborhood cluster data points and outlines future demand scenarios for school facilities. This chapter on Population and Enrollment Forecasts answers the following questions: »» What are the key demographic changes that could influence school-aged population in the future? How many school-aged children are forecasted to live in the District in the next five years? The next 10 years? In what neighborhood clusters is the population of school-aged children expected to change in five and 10 years? How does the existing capacity at DCPS and charter schools relate to the forecasted schoolaged population?

»»

»» »»

»»

»»

»»

48

POPULATION CHANGE BY CLUSTER
2000-2012 CHANGE IN SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN

D E MOGRAPHI CS
Popula�on data was gathered from the Office of Planning (OP). School Age Popula�on for this map includes children a�ending DCPS, Charter Schools, and private schools aged 3 to 18 years.
16

2000- 20 1 2 S c h o o l Ag e d C h i l d ren Popu la t i o n Ch a n g e s

40 10 17 41 19

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Popula�on Present in Cluster 1-500 Increase 1-200 Decrease > 200 Decrease

Figure 4.1

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

49

Figure 4.2

POPULATION FORECAST
The District of Columbia’s Office of Planning October 2012 Phase 2 population forecasts suggest that between 2012 and 2017, the overall population for the District will increase by 8.2 percent, coupled with a 20.5 percent increase in the school-aged population associated children (5-17 year old consolidated cohorts). This growth translates into an average annual increase of approximately 2,850 additional school-aged children per year (Figure 4.2). Forecast data from the DC Office of Planning suggests that between 2017 and 2022, the overall population for the District will increase by 7.3 percent, coupled with Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show how the forecasted population growth is applied across the neighborhood clusters in 2017 and 2022. Figures 4.10 and 4.11 show the studentaged population density per neighborhood cluster in 2012 and in 2017. For the period of 2017 to 2022, an average of 4,810 additional school-aged children will be added per year. By 2022, the OP forecast suggests that the percentage of school-aged children as a component of total population will be 14.7 percent or approximately back to the level that prevailed in 2000. a 28.7 percent increase in the school-aged population associated children (Figure 4.3).

50

FORECAST RANGES
Figures 4.6 - 4.7 shows two population forecasts. Figure 4.6 is an extrapolated forcast based on data obtained from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). The second table is from the DC Office of Planning (OP). OP's forecast data set is based on the 2012 Census estimates (recently released) as the starting point where as the COG extrapolated forecast is based on the 2011 Census data set and 2015 and 2020 COG estimates. Both are suitable forecasts to predict the District population in the years to come. They are different because of different assumptions and methodologies, and, therefore, are two forecasts for two possible futures. The OP population forecast is being used for the purposes of this Master Facilities Plan. Understanding

that in applying OP’s population forecasts to school facility planning, there are a number of caveats to consider, ranging from the prospects for and capacity to absorb in-migration, to probabilities of family households starting out and staying in a given location, and to the influence of school proximity and quality regarding household location choice. Against a backdrop of uncertain national and regional economic conditions, combined with an array of location options for families in other jurisdictions close to the District of Columbia, the facility planning process must balance school investment commitments in such a manner that resources are channeled to support known needs as well as possible new demands. A key test regarding possible school facility investment, be it

90,000 85,000 80,000 75,000 70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

Age Cohort Forecast Trends

3‐11 yrs 2012
Figure 4.3

12‐14 yrs 2017

15‐18 yrs 2022

Source:  Office of Planning Forecast Phase 1, 2000 and 2010 Census, 1/13

51

POPU L ATI O N FO RE C A S T 2012-2017 SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN POPULATION CHANGES
2012- 201 7 S c h o o l Ag e d Chi l d ren Popu la t i o n C h an g e s
Popula�on forecasts were prepared by the DC Office of Planning’s State Planning Center with assistance from its citywide planning division. School Age Popula�on for this map includes children a�ending DCPS, Charter Schools, and private schools aged 3 to 18 years.
40 10 17 41 19 16

POPULATION FORECAST

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Popula�on Present in Cluster >2000 Increase 1501-2000 Increase 1001-1500 Increase 501-1000 Increase 1-500 Increase 1-300 Decrease

Figure 4.4 52

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

POPU L ATI O N FO RE C A S T 2012-2022 SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN POPULATION CHANGES
2012- 202 2 S c h o o l Ag e d Chi l d ren Popu la t i o n C h an g e s
Popula�on forecasts were prepared by the DC Office of Planning’s State Planning Center with assistance from its citywide planning division. School Age Popula�on for this map includes children a�ending DCPS, Charter Schools, and private schools aged 3 to 18 years.
40 10 17 41 19 16

POPULATION FORECAST

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Popula�on Present in Cluster >2000 Increase 1501-2000 Increase 1001-1500 Increase 501-1000 Increase 1-500 Increase 1-200 Decrease > 200 Decrease

Figure 4.5

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

53

Extrapolated COG Population Forecast
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 3-11 572 3,522 350 614 173 248 1,042 794 715 1,844 1,403 514 1,375 743 779 497 2,020 3,815 1,158 679 1,593 1,201 1,518 566 1,893 1,853 36 852 389 938 1,868 1,502 2,292 1,559 534 1,212 1,356 2,119 3,956 0 0 0 0 615 0 0 2,012 12-14 104 798 151 166 17 27 207 148 192 457 320 115 648 148 139 106 543 1,091 322 282 492 370 511 171 281 372 5 272 163 280 610 506 741 540 191 353 379 596 1,129 0 0 0 0 128 0 0 15-18 204 1,451 267 424 122 199 348 385 372 581 455 255 845 364 386 128 820 1,728 541 534 863 670 943 279 753 684 15 292 239 410 939 874 1,191 797 254 522 627 950 1,863 0 0 0 0 199 0 0 3-11 687 4,288 476 867 440 272 1,410 1,275 875 1,675 1,314 563 1,225 778 871 501 2,386 4,558 1,448 679 1,894 1,365 1,572 670 2,461 2,451 104 912 460 1,099 2,010 1,622 2,583 1,619 534 1,321 1,277 2,207 4,330 0 0 0 0 647 0 0 2,017 12-14 53 714 115 222 161 16 157 121 133 599 411 89 807 144 113 164 596 992 342 237 393 383 493 171 341 395 4 194 136 315 535 502 692 474 164 347 405 517 1,065 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 15-18 90 897 432 655 155 32 189 145 181 529 503 119 1,979 271 121 134 710 1,352 387 556 654 487 696 300 362 470 4 279 139 344 779 581 888 717 189 446 429 620 1,268 0 0 0 0 167 0 0 3-11 697 4,988 499 799 422 296 1,822 1,817 963 1,520 1,245 537 1,050 754 825 522 2,578 5,168 1,678 688 2,248 1,460 1,768 754 2,769 3,028 227 868 569 1,099 2,110 1,719 2,775 1,669 534 1,494 1,301 2,154 4,289 0 0 0 0 623 0 0 2,022 12-14 66 786 162 276 942 20 225 212 185 498 399 121 302 174 153 134 711 1,298 455 229 535 440 420 245 511 476 5 246 172 315 714 521 842 546 164 384 357 645 1,269 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 15-18 50 844 301 706 1,715 23 142 151 152 633 603 92 1,553 255 99 201 777 1,268 397 430 495 505 653 287 371 468 2 242 145 318 746 664 842 566 166 414 394 586 1,267 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

50,709 14,074

23,776

57,725

13,804

19,256

62,330 16,244

19,637

*The Po Plan
Figure 4.6 54

Population Forecast by DC Office of Planning*
15-18 50 844 301 706 1,715 23 142 151 152 633 603 92 1,553 255 99 201 777 1,268 397 430 495 505 653 287 371 468 2 242 145 318 746 664 842 566 166 414 394 586 1,267 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 3-11 734 3,760 472 959 177 373 955 1,067 753 1,808 1,230 655 1,402 803 789 410 2,094 3,727 941 928 1,672 1,209 1,525 536 2,139 2,013 118 838 334 958 1,561 1,398 2,401 1,504 496 1,154 1,492 2,042 4,199 0 0 0 4 708 1 0 2,012 12-14 141 933 125 195 15 62 237 262 234 507 319 171 422 170 205 101 573 1,084 290 275 507 411 498 166 521 410 33 280 133 281 582 497 815 560 187 372 464 613 1,303 0 0 0 1 118 2 0 15-18 182 1,275 175 241 43 102 320 402 366 588 331 215 472 264 233 143 832 1,593 414 447 741 671 806 260 764 507 48 302 214 400 947 784 1,224 790 223 519 709 913 1,911 0 0 0 2 120 1 0 3-11 1,625 6,014 976 1,382 517 976 1,684 1,682 964 1,474 1,421 825 1,285 1,474 1,162 318 2,907 5,512 1,455 1,084 2,455 1,624 1,884 708 3,689 3,011 303 979 418 1,089 1,851 1,519 2,641 1,815 595 1,232 1,857 2,331 5,106 0 0 0 12 877 1 0 2,017 12-14 190 1,122 124 272 46 88 284 331 216 642 405 222 524 252 249 142 649 1,084 319 272 538 373 498 186 678 573 69 252 106 295 469 478 743 485 156 381 562 623 1,323 0 0 0 5 181 0 0 15-18 204 1,333 168 291 30 88 329 404 323 716 456 246 605 272 280 157 795 1,505 395 366 755 529 663 260 752 589 71 379 171 405 731 613 1,092 730 225 515 662 821 1,702 0 0 0 10 189 2 0 3-11 2,465 7,868 1,526 1,931 1,226 1,727 2,334 2,264 1,035 1,120 1,645 1,189 1,384 2,399 1,723 228 3,469 6,837 2,184 1,145 3,246 2,051 2,305 879 5,303 3,578 427 1,113 582 1,235 2,236 1,715 2,896 2,087 649 1,354 2,427 2,501 5,721 50 0 0 0 607 0 0 2,022 12-14 426 1,593 300 494 120 271 493 541 357 538 415 250 413 350 341 102 804 1,483 388 388 803 464 495 244 1,099 1,032 123 296 107 381 565 443 837 557 196 406 560 746 1,573 0 0 0 22 386 0 0 15-18 326 1,718 207 425 66 157 407 524 356 849 606 305 660 350 374 205 940 1,605 436 404 864 541 702 302 1,048 883 175 361 138 450 676 661 1,052 646 228 489 746 893 1,942 0 0 0 23 325 1 0

9,637

52,340 15,078

21,494

70,734 16,407 20,829

88,662 21,402 24,067

*The Population Forecast by DC Office of Planning is being used for the Facilities Master Plan
Figure 4.7 55

to expand actual capacity or to maintain or upgrade existing capacity, is to seek data measures underscoring needs regardless of the actual level of realized growth. Such a hypothetical adjustment to the suggested population forecasts (at 50 percent of forecast population change estimates) is included in the Unmet Need section of this report. These projections do not account for several significant redevelopment projects in DC such as the St. Elizabeths East Campus and Walter Reed Army Medical Center. These projects are still in the planning stages and it is too early to predict the impact they may have on population changes.

FINDINGS
2000-2012 POPULATION CHANGES
»» The overall population of the District of Columbia grew from approximately 572,500 residents in 2000 to 631,700 in 2012, representing an increase of 10.3 percent or an estimated 59,200 residents. Calculated on an annual basis, this increase equates to 4,930 new residents each year or 0.6 percent rise per annum (Figure 4.2). Despite overall population gains, the schoolaged children population (ages 5-17 years consolidated cohorts) decreased from approximately 82,500 in 2000 to 69,580 in 2012, representing a decrease of 15.7 percent or an estimated 12,920 school-aged children. This decrease equates to an average loss of just under 1,080 school-aged children each year or an average annual 1.3 percent loss (Figure 4.2). The overall decline in school-aged children occurred primarily prior to 2010. A gain of 2.0 percent (1,375) school-aged children (ages 5-17 years) occurred between 2010 and 2012. The percentage of school-aged children as a component of total population decreased from 14.4 percent in 2000 to 11.0 percent in 2012. Of the 44 neighborhood clusters that contain school-aged children, 33 clusters (75.0 percent) posted school-aged children decreases in which Clusters 2, 18 and 21 all posted the biggest losses, amounting to more than 1,000 children total per cluster. Clusters 4, 10 and 11 had the most school-aged children gains with more than 300 additional school-aged children per cluster over the 12year time frame.

»»

ENROLLMENT FORECAST
There is usually some difference between actual school enrollment and the estimate of school-aged children in a given neighborhood cluster. This difference varies in degree due to numerous variables. The following maps illustrate projected enrollments by using school-aged population ratios in the population forecasts which incorporate the expected continuation of enrollment anomalies (Figures 4.8 - 4.9).

»»

»»

»»

PROJECTED UNMET NEED
Figures 4.10 - 4.11 provide a visual reference for the potential interplay between forecasted school-aged enrollment changes and the impact on existing school capacity.

56

57

E NROLL M EN T F O RE C A S T 2012-2017 SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN POPULATION CHANGES
2012- 201 7 C h an g e s to Pu b l i c E d u c a t i o n E n ro l l men t (All S c h o o l Typ e s )
DCPS enrollment numbers are from the Office of the State Superintendant of Educa�on (OSSE) and Charter School Enrollment numbers obtained from Public Charter School Board (PCSB).
16

PREDICTED ENROLLMENT

40 10 17 41 19

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Popula�on Present in Cluster 1501-2000 Increase 1001-1500 Increase 501-1000 Increase 1-500 Increase 1-150 Decrease

Figure 4.8 58

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

UNMET NEED

2012 NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH UNMET NEED COMPARED AGAINST DCPS AND Nu m be r o f S t u d e n t s w i t h N eed U n met by Fa c i l i t y CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITY CAPACITY WITHIN HOME CLUSTER

PROJ EC TED UNM E T N E E D
Ca pa c i t y w i t h i n H o m e C l u ster
Popula�on forecasts were prepared by the DC Office of Planning’s State Planning Center with assistance from its citywide planning division. School capacity numbers were obtained from DCPS and Charter schools. When unavailable, a proxy for Charter school capacity numbers was created by combining the Charter enrollment numbers plus the addi�onal open seats available for each school (as reported by each individual Charter school).
11 20 2 14 42 15 1 3 21 22 16

40 10 17 41 19

12

18

13

24

School Age Popula�on for this map includes children a�ending DCPS, Charter Schools, and private schools aged 3 to 18 years.

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Schools Present in Cluster >1,995 Students 1,597 - 1,995 Students 1,198 - 1,596 Students 798 - 1,197 Students 399 - 797 Students 0 - 398 Students

Figure 4.9

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

59

POPULATION FORECAST

2012 SCHOOL-AGE POPULATION STUDENTS PER ACRE

PROJ ECTED U N M E T N E E D
S c h o o l Ag e d C h i l d re n p e r Ac re i n 2 0 1 2
Data was gathered from the Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). School Age Popula�on for this map includes children a�ending DCPS, Charter Schools, and private schools aged 3 to 18 years.
16

40 10 17 41 19

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Schools Present in Cluster >4.47 Students per Acre 3.64 - 4.47 Students per Acre 2.80 - 3.63 Students per Acre 1.96 - 2.79 Students per Acre 1.12 - 1.95 Students per Acre

Figure 4.10 60

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

PROJ ECTED U N M E T N E E D 2017 SCHOOL-AGE POPULATION STUDENTS PER ACRE
St u d e n t s p e r Ac re i n 2 0 1 7
Data was gathered from the Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). School Age Popula�on for this map includes children a�ending DCPS, Charter Schools, and private schools aged 3 to 18 years.
16

POPULATION FORECAST

40 10 17 41 19

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Schools Present in Cluster >6.08 Students per Acre 4.95 - 6.08 Students per Acre 3.80 - 4.94 Students per Acre 2.66 - 3.79 Students per Acre 1.51 - 2.65 Students per Acre

Figure 4.11

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

61

SNAPSHOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER DIFFERENTIATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
»» School-aged children (5-17 yrs.): In 2012, neighborhood clusters with the most schoolaged children (3,500-plus) are 2, 18, 33 and 39. Clusters with the fewest school-aged children (less than 400) are 5, 6 and 27. Family households are defined by one or two persons related by birth, marriage or adoption: of the estimated 257,300-plus households in the District of Columbia reported in 2010, 112,715 were family households representing 43.8 percent of total households (see Appendix C). Higher family concentrations (65.0 percentplus) are in neighborhood clusters 16, 29, 33, 37, 38 and 39. Conversely, the lowest family concentrations (25.2 percent or less) are in neighborhood clusters 1, 6 and 7. District-wide, the average family size is about 3.0 persons per household (see Appendix C). Owner-occupied households: Of the estimated 257,300-plus households in the District of Columbia reported in 2010, 110,410 are owneroccupied, representing 42.9 percent of total households. The neighborhood clusters with the highest housing tenure are 10, 11, 13, 16 and 20. Conversely, the fewest owner-occupied households are in neighborhood clusters 28 and 36-39 (see Appendix C). Educational attainment for population of 18-plus years: More than 50 percent of the population in 18 clusters (1, 3-16 and 25-27) have graduated from a higher educational institution with an associate degree or higher. All other clusters generally have less than 35 percent of the population with educational attainment of an associate degree or higher (see Appendix C)

UNMET NEED
Depending on the assumptions employed, it can be seen that approximately one-third of the neighborhood clusters are forecasted to have a potential 200-plus seat deficit when compared with existing facility capacity by 2017. By 2022 and beyond, closer to two-thirds of the neighborhood clusters are facing a potential seat deficit. In contrast, some combinations of clusters may continue to have excess school capacity; not so much because of any forecast of significant reduced demand from schoolaged children, but from a lingering capacity overage following school population declines from years past.

»»

»»

»»

»»

62

CHAPTER 5:
Facility Condition, Quality and Efficacy

FACILITY QUALITY AND CONDITION SHOULD SUPPORT QUALITY EDUCATION PREMISE
The following premises and assumptions frame the collected data, methods of analyses and questions explored in this chapter: Facility condition and quality affect the safety and comfort of students and educators, and can limit programming. They may also influence parent and student perceptions about school quality. To better understand this impact, a mobility analysis was undertaken to understand facility quality within the context of in-boundary student attendance rates. Highly effective teaching and learning, functional To guide strategic capital expenditure on facilities, it is critical to understand where facility condition and quality needs are greatest in the city and the condition and quality needs that are most persistent among similar schools. Facility condition and facility quality are different, and should be measured separately. Facility condition is the state of repair of the building enclosure (roof, walls, windows, etc); interiors (walls, finishes, lighting, etc); and building systems (mechanical, plumbing, electrical). Facility quality is the suitability of the school building for learning and its architectural and aesthetic quality. A school building can be in great physical condition, but of low quality in terms of learning and architectural merit. A high quality building for learning can be in poor physical condition. DCPS facilities that have been fully modernized since 2008 are assumed to be in good condition and of high facility quality, and, therefore, were assessed to have programming and rich student experiences are the basis of quality facilities and the design of school environments should be measured against them. This report summarizes lessons learned from assessing a sample of schools yet to be modernized through the Educational Facility Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI). The EFEI measures the effectiveness of facilities in supporting education goals outlined in the current DCPS Design Guidelines and national best practices. no condition or quality need over the five-year planning horizon of this master plan. DCPS facilities that were modernized before 2008 were assumed to have some condition need. Those that have yet to be modernized were assumed to have the greatest need. Since very limited data was available about the time frame and scope of charter school modernization, this report relies on survey data from charters to describe in broad terms the quality and condition of facilities.

PURPOSE
This section of the Master Facilities Plan examines the relative state of repair and quality of public education facilities across the District on a neighborhood basis. It identifies patterns of facility needs among charter and DCPS facilities that may influence the effectiveness of facilities to support quality programming. This portion of the plan answers the following questions:

64

»» »» »» »»

Where are the greatest facility condition needs? Are there any significant geographic patterns in facility quality across the city? How equitably has modernization funding for DCPS been distributed across the city? Among DCPS facilities that have yet to be modernized and all charter schools, are there patterns of specific facility needs that should be addressed by future modernizations?

The facility condition data on DCPS schools from 2008 includes assessments of the following building elements or “assets:” »» »» »» »» »» ADA Compliance Conveying Systems Electrical Systems Exterior Finish HVAC Interior Finish Plumbing Roof Structure Technology

FACILITY CONDITION
DCPS facility condition was assessed on an “asset” or building systems basis (roof, window, mechanical system, etc.). Building assets were originally assessed on a scale from “unsatisfactory” to “good” based on the facility condition index (FCI). Although a detailed building assessments for all DCPS inventory are currently ongoing, there was not complete data for all DCPS facilities at the time of printing. Therefore, this report relies on the 2008 Master Facilities Plan for the base data for building assessments, with updates based on modernizations that have occurred from 2008 to 2011.

»» »» »» »» »»

There was no reliable data point for charter school facility condition (see Limitations of Data in Appendix G). Each of the building assets was assessed by dividing the total cost of outstanding maintenance, repair and replacement deficiencies of the asset against the current replacement value of the asset. This calculation yields what is commonly called a facility condition index or FCI.

65

In general, this index is a relative indicator of condition. The closer the cost of the outstanding maintenance and repair deficiencies are to the cost of replacement, the worse the condition of the asset is assessed to be. The index is expressed as a decimal.

levels throughout the world, culminating in close to $1 billion worth of assets. Fielding Nair continues to develop the tool according to best practices and the highest standards in design for 21st-century learning. The EFEI does not measure education programming, educators or facility condition; rather, it focuses on the educational effectiveness of the school facility itself, based on criteria customized for each school district. For the District of Columbia public schools, the criteria were customized based on the stated goals of the DCPS Facility Design Guidelines and best practices in 21stcentury school design. The patterns are divided into three sections, relating to the areas of DCPS schools addressed in each phase of modernization. A sample of the full DCPS EFEI assessment listing all 33 patterns and supporting questions can be found in Appendix G.

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES EFFECTIVENESS INSTRUMENT (EFEI)
Fielding Nair International, one of the consultants on this plan, developed the Educational Facilities Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI) to measure how well educational facilities support teaching and learning. Since 2005, the tool has been used to evaluate facilities of all grade

66

on how many of the be supported by the g or proposed school e easier to gauge their ing needs.

Breakout Area Soft Seating

Active Zone Entry, storage, project work

EFEI PATTERNS TO MEASURE SCHOOL FACILITY EFFICACY
PATTERNS ALIGNED WITH DCPS PHASE ONE MODERNIZATION 1a: Differentiation
How effectively do the principal learning spaces support differentiation? To help every child reach his or her potential, teachers often need to provide different avenues for acquiring content, processing concepts, constructing knowledge or making sense of ideas. Differentiated instruction requires flexible and agile learning environments suitable to a variety of learning activities and student group sizes. This adaptability is particularly critical in learning environments where there is great diversity in ability, from students with special needs to those on an accelerated learning track.

ll continue in some let us look at design del is amended so that box to a more flexible Studio is sometimes Flex Space m which is, actually, Seminar, quiet individual work, st schools featuring collaborative, or presentation e Learning Studios Figure 1-4. Figure 5.1: A flexible design allows for greater etka, Illinois built in Design Pattern #1c: Learning Studio. differentiation within the classroom nce its opening, the ol remains relevant— Movable wall, screen, storage units ols being built today. or bookshelves ssroom—A Pattern man makes a strong Breakout he classroom and its Area tudio with multiple

of a Learning Studio Studio A earning Studios can uite." This is further Studio B first illustrates one igure 1-6 shows the ule—which is a new Outdoor Learning and schools able toFigure 5.2: Project-Based Learning at Terrace an elementary rregular plan createsschool in Medford, OR g zones that support Figure 1-5. modalities from the Design Pattern #1d: Learning Suite. Each studio d individual students has its own entry, breakout area, and outdoor connection, and may operate as a single studio or s.
combined with the adjacent studio into a learning suite.

1b: Project Based Learning
How effectively do the principal learning areas support project-based learning? The DCPS Facility Design Guidelines state that “the middle school program is based on team teaching with a focus on a project-based interdisciplinary curriculum.” Projectbased learning (PBL) is structured, student-directed learning that develops multiple skill sets, including critical thinking, research skills and core academics. Students may work independently or in teams on multifaceted, often interdisciplinary projects, which access learning standards. This set of criteria evaluates the effectiveness of the physical environment to support this educational goal.

Design Patterns for 21st Century Schools

7

67

and democratically decide who gets to use which space when. That said, each teacher will have a professionally outfitted workspace alongside their colleagues in the teacher’s office, which is also part of the SLC.

Café & Project Area

its own science room, its own teacher workroom with the transparency needed for the space to serve as "eyes Figure 1-10. on the street", its own toilets, its own science lab and its Djidi Djidi Aboriginal School d own central multi-purpose social space that can be used Architect: Edgar Idle Wade. for project work, independent study, distance learning, collaborative work, technology-based work and so on. Figure 1-9 shows a simpler arrangement than the SLC described above with Learning Studios clustered around 1c: Learning Communities small group rooms and a café that doubles as a project area. But even at this simple level, it is possible to create an How effectively do the principal learning areas support effective SLC. This particular pattern could be modified to show each communities? SLC having its own direct connection to the outdoors. Additionally, each Learning Studio itself could have an outdoor connection. The floor plan (Figure 1-10) The Facility guidelines call for “academic and photograph ofDCPS the Djidi Djidi Design Aboriginal School in Australia (Figure 1-11) feature another example of clusters” (early childhood, primary and intermediate); how Learning Studios can be combined with other “houses” (middle school), and “academies” (high school). common spaces to create self-contained Small Learning Communities.These three concepts can be broadly described as

the organization of the school as a cluster of learning

We have utilized one more image to represent the SLCunits within the school learning communities –smaller model. Figure 1-12, the High Tech Middle School in San AFigure 5.3: small learning community allows for greater comprised of a students and teachers who collaborate Figure 1-9. Diego, California illustrates how common area shared by flexibility in teaching and learning groups Small Design Pattern #1e: Learning Studio-based Figure 1-11. an SLC mightand be used. learn together. They use a variety of instructional
Learning Studio

Small Group Room

Learning Community (SLC).
12

strategies and grouping sizes beyond the standard

Djidi Djidi Aboriginal School, a

The Language of School Design

classroom. Research shows that the size of a learning community should be no larger than 150 students to maintain a sense of community where all are known and feel valued.

1d: Areas for Hands-On Experimentation
How well equipped are spaces for hands-on experimentation of the natural world through the sciences, mathematics and other curricula?
Figure 5.4: Science Labs at Oyster-Adams Bilingual School in Washington, DC

Hands-on experimentation is critical for building understanding in the sciences and mathematics. Both advanced placement (AP) and international baccalaureate (IB) programs require hands-on experimentation and lab time. In fact, AP has recently increased its requirements for lab time. The following criteria were used to evaluate the effectiveness of learning spaces to support hands-on experimentation both inside and outside of labs.

68

1e: Transparency
To what extent are there visual connections between spaces to ease transitions from learning activities and support passive supervision of learning activities? Transparent boundaries, such as glass walls, between spaces encourage more flexible use of those areas and dynamic learning by allowing teachers to supervise students outside of their immediate classroom.
Figure 5.5: Transparency allows for passive supervision of student-directed activity at Hillel School of Tampa, FL

Transparent spaces also encourage chance meetings and informal discussions that can enhance collaborative learning.

1f: Campfire Spaces
How well do campfire spaces function? Noted educational futurist David Thornburg outlines several “Primordial Learning Metaphors” to understand the modes through which we gain information. These metaphors set the stage for the variety of ways we learn and the types of spaces needed to support these ways of learning. The first of these spatial types is called the campfire, where one learns from stories of experts,
Figure 5.6: Campfire spaces support lectures and teacherdirected learning at Harbor City International School in Duluth, MN

teachers or student presenters.

1g: Watering Hole
What is the quality of watering hole spaces? One of David Thornburg’s Primordial Learning Metaphors, the watering hole, is a space where peers share information and learn from each other.

69

1h: Cave Space
What is the quality of cave spaces? One of David Thornburg’s Primordial Learning Metaphors, the cave, is a place for introspection and learning from oneself.

1i: Universal Design
To what extent does the school provide for students of all mental and physical abilities?
Figure 5.7: Cave spaces for quiet reading at Roosevelt Elementary in Medford, OR

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles for curriculum development offer instructional goals, methods, materials and assessments that work for students of all abilities. UDL is now included in the Common Core Standards for all District schools? The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires physical accessibility to all principal learning spaces. UDL and ADA criteria can measure to what extent the physical environment supports the delivery of curricula that meet the needs of learners of all abilities. For more on Universal Design for Learning see the National Center on

Figure 5.8: A broad range of furnishings support student comfort and study

Universal Design for Learning: http://www.udlcenter.org

1j: Furniture
Is a variety of furnishings offered throughout school? A space used for a variety of learning activities should offer flexible furnishings to best support students while they are engaged in various activities. Additionally, furniture should be sized to ergonomically support student’s bodies as they develop and allow for the sort of movement that maintains blood flow and attention.

70

1k: Technology
How well is technology integrated with the curriculum and principal learning spaces? In order for students to engage in inquiry and projectbased learning, and build 21st century literacies and skills, they must have access to computing and communication technology. The physical environment should enable the use of this technology in everyday curricula to be seamless and support multiple ways of engaging
Figure 5.9: Students use mobile laptops for group research at GATES Senior High School in Lutz, FL

technology.

1l: Acoustics
What is the quality of acoustics in principal learning areas? The relationship between poor acoustics and lowered academic achievement is well documented by a number of studies. Appropriate acoustics are critical for students to be able engage verbal presentations and even more critical in environments where multiple learning activities are taking place simultaneously. The criteria below are
Figure 5.10 A good teacher workroom provides space and resources for teachers and Professional Learning Communities to work together and collaborate

consistent with best practice as set forth by Acoustical Society of America (ASA).

1m: Teacher Professional Space
To what extent does school create a professional environment for teachers? To support DCPS’s professional learning communities (teaching teams) and teacher professional development, teachers should have professional office space to plan coursework, collaborate with colleagues and meet with parents.

71

“Eyes on the Street”
Office

Community Space

PATTERNS ALIGNED WITH DCPS PHASE TWO MODERNIZATION 2a: Welcome Entry
How welcoming is the entrance to the school?

Community Space
(also see Pattern #24)

Student Display

Covered Entry

Research shows student achievement increases with greater parental and community involvement. The physical environment of the school should make parents
Signature Element

: Welcoming Entry.

om left).

and community members feel welcome, and provide space for them to be received and learn about the school.

Welcoming Entry at en Koulu (Metsola ol), Finland.

Figure 5.11: A welcoming entry should be inviting to students, families, and members of the school community
incorporated as a key entrance element. This serves two purposes. First, it adds to the welcome feeling of the school entry, and second, it enhances the security of the school. Communities can be welcomed into school in a variety of spaces. Located by the entrance, a so-called "parent/ community room" can be a multi-purpose space that allows parents and community members to hang up their coats, have meetings and make telephone calls, make copies, send faxes and access the Internet. Ideally such rooms should also have a mini-kitchenette where parents and community members can make coffee, obtain a soft drink or warm up lunch. Alternatively, the community room can serve as a workroom for parents and community, and there can be a separate place for informal meetings that connects the school to the outside world. In the case of Cristo Rey Jesuit High School in Minneapolis (Figure 2-3), the bright glassed-in entrance is a place for the community to meet and share ideas each morning.

2b: Shared Media Resources
To what extent are media resources distributed for justin-time access? To support inquiry and project-based curricula, students need access to digital and print media resources on demand. This set of criteria evaluates the ways in which the Library Media Center functions as “high technology information distribution center,” as described by the DCPS Design Guidelines. It determines the ways in which the Library Media Center is a place for students to connect with the world through books, communication technology, and information technology.

ement

nviting school entry will contain some that speaks to what makes the school discussion, please see Figure 2-1, as "Local Signature."

ry

fabric canopy or a more elaborate a covered entry is valuable. Parents hool with younger siblings in strollers under their arms and appreciate a space between the school entry and a place where they might be dropped om a car or bus and wait out a heavy cturally, a covered entry provides more reating a ceremonial quality to the igure 2-2).

5.12: The library at Francis-Stevens Elementary n wisdom that all schoolsFigure need places nity (and this includes parents) School can in Washington, DC offers books, Writeboards, and he community should, preferably, be other media to students and teachers
25

2c: Student Display Space
How extensive are student display spaces? Student achievement and work in progress should be celebrated and presented throughout the school to provide positive reinforcement to learners and inform the community within and outside of the school. This set of criteria evaluates the extent and quality of display space and systems.

72

2d: Arts Studios
How well equipped are art labs? The visual arts provide an opportunity for student creative expression and learning through making. This set of criteria evaluates the effectiveness of visual arts space in supporting student work in a variety of media – physical and digital, and the flexibility of these spaces for different modes of art instruction.
Figure 5.13: Tiered music room at Francis-Stevens Education Campus in Washington, DC

2e: Music and Performance
To what extent is music and performance supported? The practice and performance of music and drama offer students an opportunity to build confidence and express themselves beyond verbal and written communication. This set of criteria evaluates the quality of space for music and performance.

2f: Life Skills Areas
To what extent is a life skills curriculum supported? The school should provide for the practical life skills, and
Figure 5.14: One of two gyms at Francis-Stevens Education Campus in Washington, DC

emotional skills needed to become a whole, productive adult. This set of criteria evaluates the extent to which the facility supports programming and experiences that help students build life skills.

2g: Health and Physical Fitness
To what extent are health and physical fitness supported? The school environment should support student health and well-being, and offer opportunities to develop lifelong fitness habits. This set of criteria evaluates the quality of indoor and outdoor space for supporting student health and fitness through exercise and recreation.
73

2h: Bathrooms
Service Line Kitchen

To what extent does the design of the bathroom meet needed standards of safety, privacy and cleanliness? This set of criteria evaluates the effectiveness of the

Café 1 Café 3 Café 2

bathrooms’ location and design, to support student safety, dignity and cleanliness.

oa ows how the

the overall
Round tables for 4 to 6, movable seats with backs. Vista to nature and/or community

t).

2i: Student Dining
How effectively does the physical environment of the school provide for student nourishment, and support positive dining etiquette and social skills? Growing students need access to healthy, nourishing

or cafés at ol, India.

ternational h Dennis er.

Figure 5.15: Smaller scale cafeterias with a sense of community can help make lunchtime more comfortable and manageable

ody of architectural work, in following the publication of ng book, does not appear to uild our homes, our towns and e, Alexander's work has gained resented have begun to enter the xity theory, fractals and neural he cutting edge of science. The built environment and healthy der was pointing out are now ay, we know that human brains o understand and respond to ur life and, particularly, to those environments.

Why a Pattern Language for Schools?
We felt the need to develop a pattern language for schools for the simple reason that while Alexander's book is now beginning to influence the planning and design of healthy communities, transformation is painstakingly slow in the world of school design. Despite the fact that the educational establishment itself has embraced a number of innovative approaches over the years, architects often hear educators speak with a vocabulary reminiscent of their own childhood experiences in school buildings designed for a different time.

food. The size, location and arrangement of dining facilities often drives the school schedule, rather than the needs of students. This set of criteria evaluates the effectiveness of the learning environment in providing for student nutrition and the quality of the environment created for dining, developing social skills and etiquette.

2j: Safe Learning Spaces
How effectively does the school facility provide for the safety and security of students and teachers, and community? The school building must provide a physically safe place for students to learn, as well as the security to explore, intellectually and emotionally grow, and thrive. This set of criteria evaluates the effectiveness of the school facility in support student and teacher safety, and security.

Why do schools look the way they do? Why is there a chasm e of School Design, does not between widely acknowledged best practice principles sed. The book draws upon our and the actual design of a majority of school facilities? planners and the best Figure practice5.16: A visually transparent entrance at Cristo Rey Why has the connection between learning research and ver 20 countries, represented High School allows administrators to more easily monitor educational structures been so difficult to repair? These e school designs that we have who has access to the school are the questions that we have been grappling with over com. the past decade as school planners.

13

74

PATTERNS ALIGNED WITH DCPS PHASE THREE MODERNIZATION 3a: Daylighting
To what extent does natural daylight penetrate learning areas? Appropriate daylighting strategies can improve student performance as much as 20 percent. In addition, daylighting indoor learning environments is a sustainable
Figure 5.17: Excellent access to daylight and exterior views in the auditorium of Prospect Learning Center in Washington, DC

design strategy, as it reduces electrical lighting and cooling loads. This criteria measures both the quantity and quality of daylight in the learning environment.

3b: Full Spectrum Lighting
What is the quality of artificial lighting? Poor indoor lighting conditions often contribute to many symptoms of “sick building syndrome,” such as tension headaches and fatigue, and reduces the legibility of learning material. Good indoor lighting creates a healthier, more pleasant learning environment.

3c: Exterior Vistas
Figure 5.18: Covered decks connect indoors and outdoors at Shorecrest Preparatory School in St. Petersburg, FL

To what extent do interior spaces have views and vistas? Views to the outside, particularly onto natural scenery, improve students’ emotional and intellectual well-being.

3d: Indoor-Outdoor Connection
What is the quality of the indoor-outdoor connections? Strong indoor-outdoor connections allow for seamless movement from indoor learning activities to outdoor learning and engagement with the natural world. These connections reduce lost learning time in moving students, and increases opportunities for students to access the outdoors safely.
75

3e: Outdoor Learning
How well is outdoor learning supported? Student engagement of the outdoor urban and natural environment fosters a deep understanding of neighborhood and community, environmental stewardship and makes learning fun. This set of criteria evaluates the effectiveness of the outdoor learning spaces on the school site.
Figure 5.19: Students dig in the school garden at Learning Gate Elementary School in Lutz, FL

3f: Natural Ventilation
What is the quality of natural ventilation? Adequate fresh air contributes to a student’s readiness to learn by reducing fatigue, increasing general comfort and by making a direct connection to the outdoors. Natural ventilation can cut down on ventilation and airconditioning costs.

3h: Sustainable Elements/Building as 3D Textbook
To what extent has sustainability been considered in school design? Teaching students the principles, applications and
Figure 5.20: Rain barrel at Garrison Elementary School in Washington, DC

purposes behind sustainable practices is made tangible and meaningful for students when eco-friendly features are utilized as artifacts and resources for study, enabling them to draw lessons from their experiences within the building.

76

3i: Local Signature
To what extent does the facility design connect students to the culture, history, and ethos of the local neighborhood and the District of Columbia? This set of criteria evaluate the ways in which the school facility reflects the culture, history and ethos of the District of Columbia at large, and the local neighborhood in which the school is located, and the ways in which it
Figure 5.21: Local architectural styles seen in Murch Elementary School in Washington, DC

contributes to the neighborhood.

3j: Connected to Community
To what extent is the school connected to its surrounding community? This set of criteria evaluates the ways in which the school engages the community, and its resources, as well as the ways in which it provides resources to the community.

3k: Aesthetics
What is the quality of aesthetics?
Figure 5.22: Parent Resource Center in Aiton Elementary School in Washington, DC encourages parents to become part of the school community

The learning environment should be inviting, inspiring and pleasant. A school facility that invites and inspires students is more likely to encourage them to engage the school. A beautiful school becomes a point of pride for the community and encourages strong parental and community involvement and support.

77

FINDINGS
These findings refer to the neighborhood cluster-based maps on the following pages. The findings of the facility efficacy study follow the map-based studies.

EQUITY
Clusters of high facility condition and quality need roughly correspond to clusters where total facility expenditure has been the lowest from 1998 to 2012. These clusters are located along the edges and through much of the core of the District (Figure 5.25). Projected facility expenditure from 1998-2018 begins to address some of the clusters of high facility condition and quality need along the northern edges and core of the district, and some clusters east of the Anacostia River (Figures 5.26 and 5.27).

FACILITY CONDITION
The greatest facility condition need for DCPS schools are concentrated in neighborhood clusters bordering Rock Creek Park, the north point of the District, Capitol Hill, and several clusters east of the Anacostia River (see Figure 5.23). There were 14,651 DCPS students (based on the October 2011 audited enrollment) enrolled in clusters that are classified in moderately high need of facility condition improvement. There are no clusters that rank at the high need category. There were 6,964 DCPS students (based on the October 2011 audited enrollment) enrolled in schools in clusters that are classified in low to very low need of facility condition improvement. Those clusters classified as low to very low need of facility condition are the clusters where full modernizations have taken place at some point from 1998 to 2012.

CLUSTER ENROLLMENT PARTICIPATION
Travel distance for both Elementary and all students is lowest just west of Rock Creek Park, towards the center of the district, and many clusters east of the Anacostia River. Highest travel distances occur in clusters clusters along the northeast District boundary, while cluster 44 (east of the Potomac River) has the highest travel distance in the District (Figures 5.28 and 5.29).

FACILITY QUALITY
Facility quality needs are mixed throughout the city, but tend to be greatest in neighborhood clusters bordering Rock Creek Park and east of the Anacostia River. Facility quality needs were particularly high for elementary schools east of the Anacostia River (see Figure 5.24).

78

79

FACILITY CONDITION
AVERAGE FACILITY CONDITION NEED FOR DCPS SCHOOLS BY Ave ra g e Fa c i l i t y Co n d i t i o n N eed fo r D C P S NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER

C ON DI TI ON

S c h o o ls by N e i g h b o r h o o d C l u s ter
Facility condiƟon data is derived from the facility assessments in the 2008 Master Plan, the last reliable data point for all DCPS faciliƟes at the Ɵme of prinƟng.
16

40 10 17 41 19

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Schools Present in Cluster 5 - High Need (None represented on this map) 4 - Moderate-High Need 3 - Moderate Need 2 - Moderate-Low Need 1 - Low Need 0 - Very Low Need

Figure 5.23 80

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

FACILITY QUALITY
FACILITY QUALITY NEED FOR ALL DCPS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS BY Fa c ilit y Q u al i t y N e e d fo r a l l D C P S a n d C h a r ter NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER

QUAL I TY

S c h o o ls by N e i g h b o r h o o d C l u ster
Facility quality data is derived from the Charter Facility Effec�veness Survey and the moderniza�on phase completed for the DCPS schools.
16

40 10 17 41 19

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Schools Present in Cluster 5 - High Need 4 - Moderate-High Need 3 - Moderate Need 2 - Moderate-Low Need 1 - Low Need 0 - Very Low Need

Figure 5.24

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

81

EQUITY

1998-2012 DCPS TOTAL DOLLARS SPENT PER CLUSTER

E QU I TY

1998- 20 1 2 D C PS To t a l D o l l a r s S p en t Per C lu s te r
ModernizaƟon dollars data supplied by 21st Century School Fund.
16

40 10 17 41 19

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Money Spent in Cluster >$225 Million $150 to $225 Million $75 to $150 Million <$75 Million

Figure 5.25 82

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

EQUITY

1998-2018 DCPS AVERAGE MODERNIZATION DOLLARS PER 1998- 20 1 8 D CPS Ave r a g e M o d er n i z a t i o n SQUARE FOOT

E Q U I TY

D o lla rs Pe r S q u a re Fo o t
Total dollars between 1998-2018 divided by school gross square footage (GSF). ModernizaƟon dollars data supplied by 21st Century School Fund.

16

40 10 17 41 19

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No PopulaƟon Present in Cluster $451 - $600/GSF $301 - $450/GSF $151 - $300/GSF $1 - $150/GSF

Figure 5.26

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

83

EQUITY

1998-2018 DCPS AVERAGE MODERNIZATION DOLLARS PER 1998- 20 1 8 D C PS Ave r a g e M o d er n i z a t i o n ENROLLED STUDENT

E QU I TY

D olla rs Pe r E n ro l l e d S t u d en t
Enrollment data for both DCPS and Charter Schools was gathered from the Office of the State Superintendant of Educa�on (OSSE) October 2011 Audited Enrollment. Moderniza�on dollars data supplied by 21st Century School Fund.
16

40 10 17 41 19

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No Popula�on Present in Cluster >100,000 $80,001 - $100,000 $60,001 - $80,000 $40,001 - $60,000 $20,001 - $40,000 $1 - $20,000

Figure 5.27 84

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

TRAVEL DISTANCE

AVERAGE DISTANCE TRAVELED FOR ELEMENTARY STUDENTS Ave r a g e D i st a n ce Trave le d fo r E l emen t a r y S t u d en t s FROM HOME TO SCHOOL BY NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER

T R AVEL DI S TAN C E
Travel distance data was provided by the Office of the State Superintendant of Educa�on (OSSE).
16

fro m Ho m e to S c h o o l by N ei g h b o r h o o d C l u ster

40 10 17 41 19

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water 4.00+ Miles 3.25 - 3.99 Miles 2.50 - 3.24 Miles 1.75 - 2.49 Miles 1.01 - 1.74 Miles 0.00 - 1.00 Miles

Figure 5.28

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

85

TRAVEL DISTANCE

QUALITATIVE EXTENT OF TRAVEL FOR STUDENTS FROM HOME Q u a lit a t i ve E x te n t o f Travel fo r S t u d en t s f ro m TO SCHOOL BY NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER

T R AVEL DI S TAN C E
Travel distance data was provided by the Office of the State Superintendant of Educa�on (OSSE). Acceptable travel distances for elementary school students are generally less than those for high school students. Thus, rather than consider travel distance purely in miles for all grade levels, a qualita�ve scale was created to reect appropriate travel distances.
16

Ho m e to S c h o o l by N e i g h b o r h o o d C l u ster

40

10 17 41 19

12 11

18

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

26 33 32 9 27 34

28 37 43 36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water 5 - High Travel Distance 4 - Moderate-High Travel Distance 3 - Moderate Travel Distance 2 - Moderate-Low Travel Distance 1 - Low Travel Distance 0 - Very Low Travel Distance

Figure 5.29 86

PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

The District of Columbia

EFEI Total Scores
Figure 5.30 presents the total EFEI scores for all 36 of the assessed DCPS schools that have yet to receive modernizations. The EFEI scores for DCPS schools yet to be modernized tended to be fairly low overall. While these scores reflect the quality of the educational facility, they do not necessarily represent the efforts of educational leaders in the schools and the District. During the assessment walkthroughs, the assessors found examples of school leadership working to provide a 21st-century education to its students despite facility limitations. These efforts include the following: »» At Prospect Learning Campus, the teacher workroom was well-equipped, but was not centrally located or integrated into the learning community. To promote greater use of this amenity, teachers were encouraged to keep their work desks in the collaboration room instead of their individual classrooms. »» »» At Langdon Education Campus, a former open classroom space was transformed into the Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)—a multidisciplinary technology lab. While students use and benefit from this lab on a regular basis, the space itself lacks adequate daylight, visual clarity and aesthetic quality. Kramer Middle School has just initiated a 1:1 laptop-blended classroom program that provides students with a technology-rich, highly individualized learning experience. Although Kramer’s traditional facility does not provide spaces designed to support this innovative curriculum, the school is working to create a new teacher collaborative workroom and a cyber café to enrich the student experience.

School EFEI Score
50% 45% 42% 40% EFEI Score 35% 30% 25% 20% 23% 37% 39% 36% 32% 40% 40% 36% 34% 34% 32% 39% 40% 47% 45% 42% 42% 37% 39% 41% 40% 36% 42% 39% 36% 33% 29% 35% 40% 37% 38% 33% 48% 48% 44%

School Name

Figure 5.30: Total EFEI Scores for Assessed Schools That Have Not Yet Received Modernizations 87

Phase 1 Average Scores
100 90 80 Avg % Pattern Score 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Pattern Name

Phase 2 Average Scores
100 90 80 Avg % Pattern Score 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Pattern Name

Phase 3 Average Scores
100 90 80 Avg % Pattern Score 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Pattern Name

Figure 5.31: EFEI Pattern Scores by Modernization Phase

88

Persistent Areas of Need
Figure 5.31 examines what patterns from the EFEI assessment reveal pervasive elements of need across DCPS schools. »» Flexibility: EFEI score 29.4 percent, 11th lowest score (out of 33 patterns) Small or crowded classrooms, restrictive furnishings (such as tablet-arm desks), lack of breakout spaces and confining corridors limit the potential for flexible student activity and teacher collaboration in many DCPS schools. »» Project Based Learning: EFEI score 23.2 percent, 8th lowest scoring pattern Many DCPS schools scored low on PBL support spaces—a finding corroborated by teacher and principal reports of spatial impediments to implementing project-based learning curricula. In particular, students in many schools lacked space to collaborate and execute large projects. »» Learning Communities: EFEI score 22.8 percent, 7th lowest scoring pattern Contrary to DCPS Facility Design Guidelines’ goals of establishing learning communities or academies within its schools, many of these older school buildings are departmentalized—classrooms are clustered by subject instead of by grade or student grouping. This restrictive organization and a pervasive lack of spaces for collaborative teaching and learning inhibit the potential of schools to create functioning student communities for learning. »» »» Furniture: EFEI score 18.9 percent, 5th lowest scoring pattern Many of the examined schools had inflexible furnishings, such as tablet-arm desks and hard plastic chairs, and few or no softseating options. Furnishings can have a great impact on learning spaces and are relatively inexpensive compared to construction costs; strong efforts should be made to ensure more dynamic and flexible furnishings are provided during Phase 1 modernizations. Sustainable Elements: EFEI score 5 percent, lowest scoring pattern of all A few of the surveyed schools showed a keen interest in increasing the sustainability of their facility and raising their students’ environmental awareness; Payne Elementary School, for example, has formed a partnership with the United States Green Buildings Council to build outdoor classrooms and other green networks in the school. The modernization process is a unique opportunity for DCPS to improve the sustainability of its schools across the district.

89

EFEI Score by CIP Construction Date
45% 40% Title 35% 30% 25% 20%
2017 2018
1976 1974

50%

2013

2014

2015

2016

No Date

School Name

Figure 5.32: EFEI Scores by CIP Construction Date

EFEI Score by School Vintage
50% 45% EFEI Score 40% 35%
1929 1931 1885 1880 1923 1927 1923 1931 1928 1932 1932 1930 (major additions in 1950's & 1970's) 1932 1933 1939 1940 1941 1960 1943 1943 1943 1959 1959 1964 1911 1959 1962 1969 1967 1973 1977 1978 1980

1930

30% 25% 20%

School Name

Figure 5.33: EFEI Scores by School Vintage

90

Capital Improvement Plan Construction Dates
This chart seeks to detect whether the Capital Improvement Plan construction dates align with facilities in urgent need (Figure 5.32). No strong correlations were found.

»»

Original School Construction Data
EFEI assessors noticed strong design similarities among schools of similar “vintage” (original date of construction). This chart seeks to determine how vintage relates to EFEI scores (see Figure 5.33). »» 1880s-1910s. With consistently higher EFEI scores (41 to 47 percent), school buildings of this era have unique architectural features and a tendency towards “learning community” models with academic clusters and shared common spaces. All facilities reviewed have good daylight and stimulating views to the outside. 1920s-1940s. Schools built during these decades have a medium range of EFEI scores (29 to 42 percent). They typically feature doubleloaded corridors lined with isolated small- to medium-sized classrooms. Facilities tend to have good daylight and view access in most spaces. 1940s-1960s. With medium to higher EFEI scores (33 to 47 percent), all these facilities have double-loaded corridors with sidelight windows into classrooms that allow for a little more transparency than in most schools assessed. Construction of this era is extremely recognizable and variations in aesthetics or sense of welcome in these buildings is largely related to facility condition. Most facilities have good daylight and views to the outside.

1970s-1980s. The open classroom-model dominates buildings of this era, with great variation in facility success and quality (both reported by school leadership and reflected in EFEI scores, which range from 23 to 47 percent). Acoustical quality, daylight and views tend to be limited in these facilities, in some instances, creating highly undesirable spaces. The more successful of these schools have common spaces within their academic clusters as well as spaces suited to a variety of student groupings and activities.

CHARTER FACILITY EFFICACY ANALYSIS
These charts examine what elements of need are revealed by the charter Facility Efficacy Analysis data (Figure 5.34). Scores express the level of sufficiency for each question across the surveyed charter schools. »» Specialized Learning Areas (Arts and Sciences): 34.8 percent Of the surveyed charter schools, 57.7 percent indicated a lack of space for any kind of specialty classrooms, messy spaces such as art and science labs in particular. Montessori and early childhood schools noted that such spaces are integrated into primary learning spaces. »» Outdoor Learning: 43.5 percent Like DCPS, many charter schools have limited outdoor learning spaces. In an urban area like the District, it is increasingly important to provide students opportunities for outdoor learning on a regular basis. Of the charter schools, 54.9 percent reported no outdoor learning facilities.

»»

»»

91

»»

Space Variety: 50.0 percent Spatial variety creates greater opportunities for flexibility in program and curriculum. Many school cited multipurpose spaces and libraries essential for large gatherings, but 35.2 percent found these room types lacking in their facilities.

»»

Health & Physical Fitness: 50.0 percent Physical activity and play are critical to students physical, mental and academic well-being. Several schools indicated multipurpose spaces and outdoor recreation facilities of various types, though 38 percent of charter schools noted they have no such spaces at their disposal.

Analysis Average Measure Scores
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

Space Variety

Welcoming Specialized Entry Learning Spaces (Arts & Sciences)

Health & Physical Fitness

Daylight

Outdoor Learning

Indoor Air Quality & Comfort

Connected Technology to Community

Figure 5.34: Charter Facility Average Scores by Question

92

CHAPTER 6
Prioritization Framework

DETERMINING THE NEED UNDERSTANDING FACILITY NEED
RANKING OF THE DATA
No single unit of measurement can capture the total need of a school or facility. Therefore, 14 measures were identified to determine the need of DCPS and charter school facilities for this study. They were chosen based on available data from the Office of Deputy Mayor for Education, DC Public Schools and Public Charter Schools. The 14 measures are divided into five overarching themes (described in greater detail later in this chapter): »» Current Fit - How well does an existing DCPS and charter school facility accommodate the current needs of the enrolled student body? 2017 Projected Fit - How well will the existing DCPS and charter school facilities accommodate student enrollment in 2017? 1998-2012 Modernization Equity - Where have DCPS modernization dollars been spent? Neighborhood Cluster Characteristics - Various neighborhood characteristics influence the measurement of need. The distance traveled to school and the number of children per acre, now and in the future Facility Condition and Quality - What is the physical condition of the facility? How does the facility encourage quality education

SCORING
For each measure the total range of data among all neighborhood clusters was analyzed to establish thresholds from lowest to highest need. The thresholds for each measure were then used as a relative scale of need, based on the data range. The data range is sorted into five or six thresholds ranks to determine a “score.” Scoring is based on a scale of 0 to 5 wherein zero indicates no facility need and five indicates the greatest need. For some of the measures, one (1) is the lowest score possible when the we felt there should be some need attributed to the lowest ranking.

WEIGHTING
The planning team has given each measure a weight that reflects the prioritization of the guiding principles and priorities expressed by the Executive Committee (see Guiding Principles in Chapter 2). Weighting increases the impact of certain measures on the total score for each neighborhood cluster. For each measure, the score is multiplied by the assigned weight of that measure to produce the index. Together, the weights add up to 70 with a maximum total index of 350, which indicates the greatest facility need.

»»

»» »»

»»

RANKING
All of the scores from the 14 measures are added together to produce the total index. The total index is then compared to a quintile scale that ranges from low to high facility needs.

94

95

CURRENT FIT NEED ASSESSMENT
How well does an existing DCPS and charter school facility accommodate the current needs of the enrolled student body? The following measures were applied to answer that question.

Middle School & Education Campus (MS/ EC1/EC2)
GSF/Enrolled Student (Weight 4) < 75 GSF per Enrolled Student 75 – 99 GSF per Enrolled Student 100 – 124 GSF per Enrolled Student 125 – 149 GSF per Enrolled Student 150 – 219 GSF per Enrolled Student >= 220 GSF per Enrolled Student Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

AVERAGE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE PER ENROLLED STUDENT
This measurement considers the average square footage per actual student in the facility. The schools with the lowest gross square footage (GSF) per enrolled student are determined to have the highest need. Three scales were developed for elementary, middle and high schools. Each scale is loosely connected to the DCPS guideline of 150 GSF for elementary schools, 170 GSF for middle schools and 190 GSF per student for high schools with 80 percent being a targeted utilization rate of enrollment to facility capacity for all schools. For each neighborhood cluster, the school scores were averaged. The scales for this measure are as follows:

Elementary School (ES)
GSF/Enrolled Student (Weight 4) < 50 GSF per Enrolled Student 50 – 74 GSF per Enrolled Student 75 – 99 GSF per Enrolled Student 100 – 124 GSF per Enrolled Student 125 – 189 GSF per Enrolled Student >= 190 GSF per Enrolled Student Score 5 4 3 2 1

AVERAGE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF STUDENT CAPACITY
What is the average space designed for each student when the school is at full capacity? The schools with the lower GSF per student capacity are determined to have a higher need. Again, the scale is loosely connected to the DCPS guideline of 150 GSF for elementary schools, 170 GSF for middle schools and 190 GSF per student for high schools with 80 percent being a targeted utilization rate of enrollment to facility capacity for all schools. For each neighborhood cluster, the school scores were averaged. The scales for this measure is as follows:

High School and Education Campus (MS/ HS)
GSF/Enrolled Student (Weight 4) < 100 GSF per Enrolled Student 100 – 124 GSF per Enrolled Student 125 – 149 GSF per Enrolled Student 150 – 174 GSF per Enrolled Student 175 – 249 GSF per Enrolled Student >= 250 GSF per Enrolled Student Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

96

High School and Education Campus (MS/ HS)
GSF/Enrolled Student (Weight 2) < 100 GSF per Student Capacity 100 – 124 GSF per Student Capacity 125 – 149 GSF per Student Capacity 150 – 174 GSF per Student Capacity 175 – 199 GSF per Student Capacity >= 200 GSF per Student Capacity Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

with less than 50 percent utilization receives a score of zero (0). The scale for this measure is as follows:
Utilization (Weight 4) >= 90% Utilization 80% – 89% Utilization 70% – 79% Utilization 60% – 69% Utilization 50% – 59% Utilization < 50% Utilization Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

Middle School & Education Campus (MS/ EC1/EC2)
GSF/Enrolled Student (Weight 2) < 75 GSF per Student Capacity 100 – 124 GSF per Student Capacity 100 – 124 GSF per Student Capacity 125 – 149 GSF per Student Capacity 150 – 174 GSF per Student Capacity >= 175 GSF per Student Capacity Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

CURRENT FIT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES GP1: Focus on equity planning.
The amount of GSF should be equitably distributed so that all students have access to schools that are not overcrowded.

Elementary School (ES)
GSF/Enrolled Student (Weight 4) < 50 GSF per Student Capacity 50 – 74 GSF per Student Capacity 75 – 99 GSF per Student Capacity 100 – 124 GSF per Student Capacity 125 – 149 GSF per Student Capacity >= 150 GSF per Student Capacity Score 5 4 3 2 1

GP2: Build facilities around quality educational programs.
A neighborhood cluster that exhibits a high indication of need for current fit may show that it lacks sufficient space for programming options beyond standard classroom space. To support specialty programming like the arts, technology and physical education, more space per student is needed than in typical classrooms.

AVERAGE UTILIZATION
Utilization is determined by dividing the actual student enrollment by the designed student capacity. Facilities that have high utilization are determined to have the highest need. The scale use 80 percent as a target utilization rate of enrollment to facility capacity for all schools. Any school

GP3: Align Investments with Projected Student Demand.
Clusters that are designated as high need are at their designed capacity or over capacity and, therefore, cannot support additional demand.

97

ASSESSMENT OF NEED
CURRENT FIT

A S S E S S M EN T O F N E E D
C ur re nt F i t

16

40 10 17 41 18 19

12 11

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

Data Weighting and Ranking of: » Existing Fit › Average GSF per Student Capacity › Average GSF per Student Enrollment › Average Facility Utilization
28 37 43 9 27

26 33 32 34

36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No DCPS or PCS Schools in Cluster High Need Moderate High Need Moderate Need Moderate Low Need Low Need

Figure 6.1 98

Public Education MastEr FacilitiEs Plan

The District of Columbia

2017 PROJECTED FIT
How well will the existing DCPS and charter school facilities accommodate student enrollment in 2017? This section answers that question with scoring of neighborhood clusters based on enrollment changes and needs. demand, with the lowest score set at zero (0) if the lowest number of seats is a negative number. The difference in the number of seats needed from the lowest to the highest is divided into quintiles. If a neighborhood cluster does not require any more seats, that cluster will receive a score of zero (0). The scale for this measure is as follows:
Unmet Need (Weight 8) 1,598 – 1,996 Seats Needed 1,199 – 1,597 Seats Needed 799 – 1,198 Seats Needed 400 – 798 Seats Needed 1 – 399 Seats Needed 0 Seats Needed Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

ENROLLMENT CHANGE
The neighborhood clusters that are projected to have the highest increase of students are determined to have the highest need. Scoring is based upon the degree of change in enrollment with the lowest being set at zero if a decline in enrollment is expected. The difference in change is divided into quintiles or fifths. If a neighborhood cluster is projected to decline in enrollment, that cluster will receive a score of zero (0). The scale for this measure is as follows:
Enrollment Change (Weight 3) 1,737 – 2,170 Enrollment Increase 1,303 – 1,736 Enrollment Increase 869 – 1,302 Enrollment Increase 435 – 868 Enrollment Increase 1 – 435 Enrollment Increase 0 Enrollment Increase Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

Pre-School Unmet Need In what neighborhood clusters will extra seats be needed to accommodate the forecasted pre-school student population? The clusters with the highest unmet need are determined to have the highest need. Scoring is based on the greatest and lowest numbers of seats needed with the lowest score set at zero if the lowest number of seats is a negative number. The difference in the number of seats needed from the lowest to the highest is divided into quintiles. If a neighborhood cluster does not require any more seats, that cluster will receive a score of zero (0). The scale for this measure is as follows:
Pre-School Unmet Need (Weight 4) 679 – 848 Seats Needed 510 – 678 Seats Needed 340 – 509 Seats Needed 171 – 339 Seats Needed 1 – 170 Seats Needed 0 Seats Needed Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

Unmet Need In what neighborhood clusters will extra seats be needed to accommodate the projected student population? The clusters with the highest unmet need are determined to have the highest need. Scoring is based on the greatest and lowest numbers of seats needed to meet forecasted student enrollment

99

2017 PROJECTED FIT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES GP1: Focus on equity planning.
Capital resources should be allocated to neighborhood clusters showing strong forecasted demand.

GP3: Align investments with projected student demand.
This guiding principle was created specifically to respond to forecasted student demand.

GP4: Invest in cradle-to-career educational opportunities.
Clusters designated as “low need” may have enough facility space to accommodate additional community programs, such as pre-K and work training.

100

ASSESSMENT OF NEED
2017 PROJECTED FIT

A S S E S S M EN T OF N E E D
2017 P ro j e c te d F i t

16

40 10 17 41 18 19

12 11

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

Data Weighting and Ranking of: » 2017 Projected Fit › Enrollment Change › Unmet Need › Pre-School Unmet Need
28 37 43 9 27

26 33 32 34

36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No DCPS or PCS Schools in Cluster High Need Moderate High Need Moderate Need Moderate Low Need Low Need

Figure 6.2

Public Education MastEr FacilitiEs Plan

The District of Columbia

101

1998-2012 DCPS MODERNIZATION EQUITY
Where have DCPS modernization dollars been spent? Where do dollars need to be spent in order to ensure all DC public schools are high quality facilities? This section looks at school needs based on funds allotted to students and facilities.

DOLLARS SPENT PER STUDENT CAPACITY (DCPS ONLY)
How much money has been spent in each facility based on its capacity? The facilities with the lowest dollars spent per student capacity are determined to have the highest need.

DOLLARS SPENT PER ENROLLED STUDENT (DCPS ONLY)
How much money per enrolled student has been spent at each facility? The facilities with the lowest dollars spent per student are determined to have the highest need. Scoring is based on the greatest and lowest amounts of money spent per enrolled student. The scale maximum is set at $65,00 per enrolled student, meaning that if more than $65,000 is spent per enrolled student, there is no need and the score is zero. The difference in the amount of money spent per enrolled student from the lowest to $65,000 is divided into quintiles. The scale for this measure is as follows:
Dollars per Enrolled Student (Weight 5) <= $14,478 per Enrolled Student $14,479 – $27,109 per Enrolled Student $27,110 – $39,739 per Enrolled Student $39,740 – $52,370 per Enrolled Student $52,371 – $65,000 per Enrolled Student > $65,000 Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

Scoring is based on the greatest and lowest amounts of money spent per student capacity. The scale maximum is set at $50,000 per student capacity, meaning that it is more than $50,000 is spent per student capacity, there is no need and the score is zero. The $50,000 is about 80 percent of the $65,000 maximum set for dollars spent per enrolled student. This amount is in keeping with the 80 percent utilization target. Difference in the amount of money spent per student capacity from the lowest to the highest is divided into quintiles. The scale for this measure is as follows:
Dollars per Student Capacity (Weight 2) <= $12,026 per Student Capacity $12,027 – $21,519 per Student Capacity $21,520 – $31,013 per Student Capacity $31,014 – $40,506 per Student Capacity $40,507 – $50,000 per Student Capacity > $50,000 Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

102

DOLLARS SPENT PER GSF (DCPS ONLY)
How much money has been spent on each facility based on its size? The facilities with the lowest money spent per gross square foot (GSF) are determined to have the highest need. Scoring is based upon the greatest and lowest amounts of money spent per GSF. The scale maximum is set at $250 per GSF, meaning that if more than $250 per GSF was spent, there is no need and the score is zero. The difference in the amount of money spent per GSF from the lowest to the highest is divided into quintiles. The scale for this measure is as follows:
Dollars per GSF (Weight 8) <= $50 per GSF $51-$100 per GSF $101-$150 per GSF $151-$200 per GSF $201-$250 per GSF > $250 per GSF Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

MODERNIZATION EQUITY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES GP1: Equity-focused planning
It is important to the District to equitably distribute resources across the city. Central to this, analyzing equitable allocation of resources to determine where the dollars have been spent to date on facility modernizations.

103

ASSESSMENT OF NEED

1998-2012 DCPS MODERNIZATION EQUITY

A S S E S S M EN T O F N E E D
1998- 20 1 2 DC P S Mo der n i z at ion E q u i t y

16

40 10 17 41 18 19

12 11

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

Data Weighting and Ranking of: » 1998-2012 Modernization Equity › Dollars Spent per Enrolled Student › Dollars Spent per Student Capacity › Dollars Spent per GSF
28 37 43 9 27

26 33 32 34

36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No DCPS or PCS Schools in Cluster High Need Moderate High Need Moderate Need Moderate Low Need Low Need

Figure 6.3 104

Public Education MastEr FacilitiEs Plan

The District of Columbia

NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER CHARACTERISTICS
Various neighborhood characteristics influence the measurement of need. The distance traveled to school and the number of children per acre, now and in the future, are characteristics used in this study.

Middle School Travel Distance
High School Travel Distance (Weight 5) 5.70 – 6.63 Miles Traveled 4.78 – 5.69 Miles Traveled 3.85 – 4.77 Miles Traveled 2.93 – 3.84 Miles Traveled 2.01 – 2.92 Miles Traveled <= 2 Miles Traveled Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

TRAVEL DISTANCE
This measure scores the average distance traveled to school for each student by neighborhood cluster for elementary, middle, and high schools. The neighborhood clusters with the greatest travel distance have the greatest need. Three scales were developed for elementary, middle, and high schools. The minimum distance traveled before a cluster is classified as having a need is different for each school type. This minimum scale is set as follows: one mile for elementary schools; two miles for middle schools; and three miles for high schools. The difference in the established minimum for each school type and the greatest distance traveled for each school type is then divided into quintiles. For each neighborhood cluster, the scores were averaged. The scales for this measure are as follows:

Elementary School Travel Distance
High School Travel Distance (Weight 5) 4.00 – 4.75 Miles Traveled 3.25 – 3.99 Miles Traveled 2.50 – 3.24 Miles Traveled 1.75 – 2.49 Miles Traveled 1.01 – 1.74 Miles Traveled <= 1 Mile Traveled Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

CURRENT NO. OF SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN PER ACRE
The school-aged children per acre is determined by dividing the total number of school-aged children by the total acreage in the neighborhood cluster. The clusters with the greatest number of school-aged children per acre have the greatest need. Scoring is based upon the greatest and lowest number of school-aged children per acre. The difference in the number of children per acre is divided into quintiles. The

High School Travel Distance
High School Travel Distance (Weight 5) 5.55 – 6.19 Miles Traveled 4.91 – 5.54 Miles Traveled 4.28 – 4.90 Miles Traveled 3.64 – 4.27 Miles Traveled 3.01 – 3.63 Miles Traveled <= 3 Miles Traveled Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

score for this measure is as follows:
Children per Acre (Weight 10) 3.65 – 4.48 Children per Acre 2.81 – 3.64 Children per Acre 1.97 – 2.80 Children per Acre 1.13 – 1.96 Children per Acre <= 1.12 Children per Acre Score 5 4 3 2 1

105

2017 PROJECTED NO. OF SCHOOLAGED CHILDREN PER ACRE
The 2017 projected number of school-aged children per acre is determined by dividing the projected number of school-aged children by the total acreage in the neighborhood cluster. The clusters with the greatest projected number of school-aged children per acre have the greatest need. Scoring is based upon the greatest and lowest number of school-aged children per acre. The difference in the number of children per acre is divided into quintiles. The score for this measure is as follows:
Children per Acre (Weight 5) 4.96 – 6.09 Children per Acre 3.81 – 4.95 Children per Acre 1.67 – 3.80 Children per Acre 1.52 – 2.66 Children per Acre <= 1.51 Children per Acre Score 5 4 3 2 1

NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO GUIDING PRINCIPLES GP5: Increase collaboration and partnership among service providers.
DCPS and charter schools should coordinate efforts to ensure every child in every neighborhood has access to a high quality school.

GP6: Create community-centered schools.
When every community has a high quality school in its center, travel distance will decrease.

106

ASSESSMENT OF NEED

NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER CHARACTERISTICS

A S S E S S M EN T OF N E E D

Ne i g hb or ho o d C l u ste r C h a rac te r i s t ic s

16

40 10 17 41 18 19

12 11

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

Data Weighting and Ranking of: » Average Travel Distance » Current No. of School Aged Children per Acre » 2017 No. of School Aged Children per Acre
28 37 43 9 27

26 33 32 34

36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No DCPS or PCS Schools in Cluster High Need Moderate High Need Moderate Need Moderate Low Need Low Need

Figure 6.4

Public Education MastEr FacilitiEs Plan

The District of Columbia

107

FACILITY CONDITION AND QUALITY
What is the physical condition of the facility? How does the facility encourage quality education? These questions are answered in this section by scoring DCPS school settings.
Quality (Weight 5) >= 70% Efficacy Score 54% – 69% Efficacy Score 39% – 53% Efficacy Score 20% – 38% Efficacy Score 1% – 19% Efficacy Score Weight = 5 Score 5 4 3 2 1

interpretation as outlined in the Facility Quality section of Chapter 5.

FACILITY CONDITION
What is the physical state of the facility, considering elements such as the roof, windows and heating and cooling system? The facilities with the highest physical condition score are determined to have the greatest need. This measure pertains only to the DCPS only through the 2008 FCI (see chapter 5 for further explanation). There was no relevant data for charter schools. The scale below is the result of the data collection and interpretation as outlined in the Facility Condition section of Chapter 5.
Condition (Weight 5) >= 86% Condition Score 51% – 85% Condition Score 26% – 50% Condition Score 1% – 25% Condition Score Weight = 5 Score 5 4 3 1

FACILITY CONDITION AND QUALITY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Facility condition and quality affect the safety and comfort of students and educators, and can limit programming. Facility condition and quality may also influence parent and student perceptions about school quality.

GP1: Focus on equity planning.
Every child in every neighborhood should have access to a high quality facility that is in good condition.

FACILITY QUALITY
What is the educational efficacy of the facility? Facility quality was measured differently for DCPS than for charter schools. For a thorough description, refer to Appendix G. The facilities with the highest quality score are determined to have the greatest need. The scale below is the result of the data collection and

GP2: Build facilities around quality educational programs.
High quality facilities support high quality educational programming.

GP3: Align investments with projected student demand.
In areas with high student demand, it is critical that facilities are in good condition as they affect a higher percentage of students.

108

ASSESSMENT OF NEED
FACILITY CONDITION AND QUALITY

A S S E S S M EN T OF N E E D
Fac i l i t y Cond i t ion a nd Q u a li t y

16

40 10 17 41 18 19

12 11

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

Data Weighting and Ranking of: » Facility Condition and Quality › Facility Condition › Facility Quality
28 37 43 9 27

26 33 32 34

36

35

44 39

38

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster Water No DCPS or PCS Schools in Cluster High Need Moderate High Need Moderate Need Moderate Low Need Low Need

Figure 6.5

Public Education MastEr FacilitiEs Plan

The District of Columbia

109

Facility Needs Measures and Weights in Relation to the Guiding Principles
Guiding Principles (in priority order)
Equity Focused Planning Align Investments with  Projected Student  Demand Build Facilities around  Quality Educational  Programs Increase Collaboration  and Partnership among  Service Providers Invest in the  Commitment to Cradle  to Career Educational  Opportunities Community Centered  Schools

Topic and Measure
Existing Fit 1. Average GSF per Enrolled  Student 2. Average GSF per Student  Capacity 3. Average Utilization (Enrolled  Student / Student Capacity) 2017 Projected Fit 4. Enrollment Change 5. Unmet Need 6. Pre‐School Unmet Need 1998‐2012 Modernization Equity 7. Dollars Spent per Enrolled  Student 8. Dollars Spent per Student  Capacity 9. Dollars Spent per GSF Neighborhood Cluster Characteristics 10. Travel Distance 11. Current No. of School‐Aged  Children per Acre 12. 2017 Projected No. of School‐ Aged Children per Acre Facility Condition and Quality 13. Condition 14. Quality

Weight
10 4 2 4 15 3 8 4 15 5 2 8 20 5 10 5 10 5 5

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X

X

X X

X X

X X

TOTAL WEIGHTS
Figure 6.6 110

70

ASSESSMENT OF NEED
COMBINED ASSESSMENT OF NEED

A S S E S S M EN T OF N E E D
De te r m i ni n g t he Com bi ne d Fac i li t y Ne e d s

16

40 10 17 41 18 19

12 11

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

Data Weighting and Ranking of: » Existing Fit › Average GSF per Student Capacity › Average GSF per Student Enrollment › Average Facility Utilization » 2017 Projected Fit › Enrollment Change › Unmet Need › Pre-School Unmet Need » 1998-2012 Modernization Equity › Dollars Spent per Enrolled Student › Dollars Spent per Student Capacity › Dollars Spent per GSF » Neighborhood Characteristics › Average Travel Distance › 2012 School Aged Children per Acre › 2017 School Aged Children per Acre » Facility Condition and Quality › Facility Condition › Facility Quality » Magnitude of Cluster
44 39 43 28 37 9 27

26 33 32 34

36

35

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster
38

Water No DCPS or PCS Schools in Cluster High Need Moderate High Need Moderate Need Moderate Low Need Low Need Public Charter Schools (PCS) District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) DCPS Schools to be Consolidated at the end of 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 School Years

Figure 6.7

Public Education MastEr FacilitiEs Plan

The District of Columbia

111

CHAPTER 7
Recommendations

STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS
The recommendations of this Master Facilities Plan are grounded in stakeholder input and aimed at providing equitable access to a quality school for every student in the District. To achieve this goal, the plan proposes a number of strategic recommendations, both short-term and longterm, to address the greatest needs suggested by the data. Much of the work of the plan focused on developing a process for making strategic facility investments informed by a comprehensive set of data and extensive stakeholder engagement. The recommendations are offered in the spirit of lessons learned and opportunities revealed through our work that will make future plans even more strategic and robust. The areas of greatest need were defined by the data synthesis of needs in the Prioritization Framework discussed in Chapter 6. Throughout the recommendations that follow, the phrase “areas of greatest need” refers to the neighborhood clusters in Figures 7.1 and 7.2.

NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTERS ASSESSED WITH THE GREATEST NEED
Cluster 2 | Columbia Heights, Mt. Pleasant, Pleasant Plains, Park View Cluster 7 | Shaw, Logan Circle Cluster 18 | Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth Cluster 25 | Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park

AREAS OF GREATEST NEED
The findings of greatest need are geographically based on the neighborhood cluster. This apolitical geographic unit extends across wards and is large enough to include multiple schools, both DCPS and charters, and small enough to analyze the city at a grain that reveals patterns of need across the city. Since the neighborhood cluster has also been used by other studies conducted by the city, the findings of this study can be considered alongside that other work.

Cluster 33 | Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning Heights Cluster 36 | Woodland/Fort Stanton, Garfield Heights, Knox Hill Cluster 39 | Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington Highlands

114

ASSESSMENT OF NEED

COMBINED NEED De te r m i niASSESSMENT n g t he ComOF bi ne d Fac i li t y Ne e d s

A S S E S S M EN T OF N E E D

16

40 10 17 41 18 19

12 11

13 2 14 42 15 1 3 21

20

22

24

4 6 5

7 25 8 45

23

46

29

31 30

Data Weighting and Ranking of: » Existing Fit › Average GSF per Student Capacity › Average GSF per Student Enrollment › Average Facility Utilization » 2017 Projected Fit › Enrollment Change › Unmet Need › Pre-School Unmet Need » 1998-2012 Modernization Equity › Dollars Spent per Enrolled Student › Dollars Spent per Student Capacity › Dollars Spent per GSF » Neighborhood Characteristics › Average Travel Distance › 2012 School Aged Children per Acre › 2017 School Aged Children per Acre » Facility Condition and Quality › Facility Condition › Facility Quality » Magnitude of Cluster
44 39 43 28 37 9 27

26 33 32 34

36

35

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster
38

Water No DCPS or PCS Schools in Cluster High Need Moderate High Need Moderate Need Moderate Low Need Low Need Public Charter Schools (PCS) District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) DCPS Schools to be Consolidated at the end of 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 School Years

Figure 7.1

Public Education MastEr FacilitiEs Plan

The District of Columbia

115

Cluster Number

Cluster Name

DCPS Schools

Charter Schools • AppleTree Early Learning PCS: Columbia Heights • Carlos Rosario International PCS • Cesar Chavez PCS: Bruce Prep Campus • Creative Minds PCS • DC Bilingual PCS: Columbia • DC Bilingual PCS: 14th Street • E.L. Haynes PCS: Georgia Avenue • LAYC Career Academy PCS • Shining Stars Montessori Academy PCS • The Next Step: El Proximo Paso PCS • YouthBuild LAYC PCS • Center City PCS: Shaw Campus • Community Academy PCS: Butler Bilingual • KIPP DC: Grow, Lead, WILL • Bridges PCS • Center City PCS: Petworth Campus • Community Academy PCS: Amos I • Community Academy PCS: Amos II • Community Academy PCS: Online • E.L. Haynes PCS: Kansas Avenue • Hospitality Senior High PCS • Washington Latin PCS: Middle School Campus (Decatur) • Washington Latin PCS: Upper School Campus (Upshur)

Category of Highest Need

2

Columbia Heights, Mt. Pleasant, Pleasant Plains, Park View

• Bancroft Elementary School • Benjamin Banneker Senior High School • Bruce-Monroe Elementary School at Park View • Cardozo Senior High School • Columbia Heights Education Campus • Meyer Elementary School • Tubman Elementary School

• Current capacity significantly below 2017 projected enrollment • Modernization Equity • Neighborhood children travelling long distances to go to school • Facility quality and condition need to be improved

7

Shaw, Logan Circle

• Garrison Elementary School • Seaton Elementary School • Shaw Junior High School

• Current capacity significantly below 2017 projected enrollment • Modernization Equity • Facility quality and condition need to be improved

18

Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth

• Barnard Elementary School • Brightwood Education Campus • MacFarland Middle School • Powell Elementary School • Raymond Education Campus • Roosevelt Senior High School • Sharpe Health School • Truesdell Education Campus • West Education Campus • Capitol Hill Montessori at Logan • Eliot-Hine Middle School • J.O. Wilson Elementary School • Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School • Miner Elementary School • Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster) • Prospect Learning Center • School-Within-A-School at Logan • Stuart-Hobson Middle School (Capitol Hill Cluster) • Washington Metropolitan High School • C.W. Harris Elementary School • Davis Elementary School • Fletcher-Johnson Education Campus • Nalle Elementary School • Plummer Elementary School • Garfield Elementary School • Stanton Elementary School

• Current capacity significantly below 2017 projected enrollment • Modernization Equity • Facility quality and condition need to be improved

25

Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park

• AppleTree Early Learning PCS: Oklahoma Ave. • Friendship PCS: Blow-Pierce Elementary & Middle • Options PCS: Middle and High School • Two Rivers PCS: Upper and Lower

• Current capacity significantly below 2017 projected enrollment • Modernization Equity • Facility quality and condition need to be improved

33

Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning Heights

• KIPP DC: KEY, LEAP, Promise • Maya Angelou PCS: Evans High School • Maya Angelou PCS: Evans Middle • Maya Angelou PCS: Young Adult Learning Center

• Modernization Equity • Neighborhood children travelling long distances to go to school • Facility quality and condition need to be improved • Modernization Equity • Neighborhood children travelling long distances to go to school • Facility quality and condition need to be improved

36

Woodland/Fort Stanton, Garfield Heights, Knox Hill

39

Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington Highlands

• Ballou Senior High School • Ferebee-Hope Elementary School • Hart Middle School • Hendley Elementary School • King Elementary School • M.C. Terrell/McGogney Elementary School • Patterson Elementary School • Simon Elementary School

• Achievement Preparatory Academy PCS • Center City PCS: Congress Heights Campus • Eagle Academy PCS: The Eagle Center at McGoney • Early Childhood Academy PCS: Walter Washington Campus • Friendship PCS: Southeast Elementary Academy • Friendship PCS: Technology Preparatory Academy • Imagine Southeast PCS • National Collegiate Preparatory PCS

• Modernization Equity • Neighborhood children travelling long distances to go to school • Facility quality and condition need to be improved

Figure 7.2: Neighborhood Clusters with the Highest Facility Need 116

STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS NEEDS
Short-Term Strategies
The following are recommended strategies to address the needs outlined in this Master Facilities Plan over the next five years through adjustments to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Some require relatively small investments for short-term gains. ST1: TARGET CAPITAL RESOURCES FOR AREAS OF GREATEST FACILITY CONDITION AND QUALITY NEED WITH LARGE SCHOOL-AGE POPULATIONS, BUT LOW ENROLLMENT. Areas where the most children live should receive priority for facility resources. In this way, public funds are used to benefit the greatest number of children. Many charters would like to draw enrollment from the neighborhood in which they are located. Other charters are facing enrollment pressure and do not have space to expand where they are currently located. Capital expenditures should be directed to clusters with low enrollment but large school-age populations to help redistribute enrollment by creating a greater number of facilities of high quality to serve areas of large populations. No longer will students have to travel great distances to find a school of quality. Rather than focus on a few neighborhoods where enrollment has been historically high, this redistribution of resources ensures that parents and students will have a high quality school facility to choose from in every neighborhood. ST2: PRIORITIZE FACILITY RESOURCES FOR SCHOOLS THAT SERVE MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADES IN AREAS OF GREATEST NEED. The greatest dip in enrollment has been during the middle school years for both DCPS and charter schools. Prioritizing facility resources for middle schools, whether for full modernizations, additions to provide needed capacity or support programming, or new construction, would send a clear message about the value placed by the city on middle school education and could contribute to reversing this trend. A focus on middle schools inspires confidence that there will be a school facility of quality to serve the surge of students currently in elementary school as they age. Since there are fewer stand-alone middle schools and K-8 schools than elementary schools, it is feasible to have a quicker positive impact on this school type. The improvements to the Takoma Education Campus, which saw enrollment and student performance increases after a complete modernization, could be repeated. Although the “Takoma Effect” cannot be directly attributed to modernization, its example represents a worthwhile investment to better prepare students for high school.

117

ST3: PILOT FACILITY SOLUTIONS TO SUPPORT INNOVATIVE PROGRAMMING. Throughout both DCPS and charter schools, many leaders and educators are developing and executing innovative education programs in facilities that do not support the programming. For example, at DCPS Kramer Middle School, the school leadership has developed a flipped classroom model where students spend half of a 90-minute schedule block working online on a set of exercises and projects to build mastery and the other half in a traditional instruction class. But the facility is ill-equipped to support the agile movement between a digital learning arrangement and a lecture arrangement. To remedy this situation, a fund could be set up for facility improvements to support innovative education programming at both DCPS and charter schools. These small-scale renovations would then be observed and measured for their effectiveness and, if successful, used as a model for future modernizations. ST4: IN CLUSTERS FORECASTED TO HAVE SCHOOL-AGE POPULATION INCREASES, SHARE UNDERUTILIZED SPACE IN DCPS FACILITIES WITH CHARTER SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, AND OTHERS THAT USE SPACE TO PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH ACCESS TO WORKFORCE TRAINING. Given the forecast for increases in school-age population, facilities that are currently underutilized may provide much needed capacity in the future, even within the five-year horizon of this plan. Therefore, to make the most of the facility asset, underutilized space could be leased to organizations that support the community in general or youth in particular. Such co-location may also enhance the student experience.
118

ST5: DEVELOP A BEST PRACTICES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES DOCUMENT FOR ALL PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES - DCPS AND CHARTER. Design guidelines for both DCPS and charter schools would establish the basic expectations for a quality public education facility, while allowing flexibility for specific programming needs of charter schools and specialized DCPS schools. Design guidelines should draw on the most effective design strategies and lessons learned from the DCPS modernization program to date, highly effective design strategies from charter schools, and best practices nationwide. Most buildings in the DCPS inventory and, by extension, many charters, were designed 40 or more years ago with only classroom spaces in mind. Therefore, many schools are not organized in ways to support the variety of space sizes and types required by contemporary teaching and learning. The design guidelines should identify the appropriate space needs for these programs so that future modernizations can properly address these needs. Design guidelines should also address the space needs for special education services as well as partnerships with other education program providers. School leaders have been creative and entrepreneurial in using underutilized space in school buildings for programs that benefit their students. However, in many of the Education Facility Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI) walkthroughs (see Chapter 4 for more details), the planning team observed special education and enhancement programs operating in formerly under-utilized spaces that were not conclusive to these activities.

ST6: CREATE THE SPACE AND ENVIRONMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR COLLABORATION WITHIN EACH SCHOOL. DCPS has a professional learning community structure to support teacher collaboration and professional development, and many charters have similar programs. Research has shown that teachers are far more effective when they can collaborate with and learn from peers. To make this program even more effective, there should be high quality space for each professional learning community in every school. High quality space for professional collaboration among educators will help create a physical environment that attracts and retains the best teachers, and supports a culture of collaboration and innovation. Space needs should also be addressed for specialists, para-professionals and education partners providing enhancement programs.

Professional collaboration space could also be a place for educators from both DCPS and charter schools, as well as other service providers, to meet and share knowledge and best practices. ST7: ESTABLISH A CONSISTENT AND STREAMLINED DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR FACILITIES. This Master Facilities Plan gathers comprehensive data on school facilities, including information on capacity, building conditions and demographic changes. Currently, facilities-related data is dispersed across numerous agencies, not updated regularly, if it is gathered at all, and difficult to access. As an example, the Department of General Services is in the process of updating school facilities conditions assessments for all publicly owned and operated schools, and consolidating this information into its property management database of public assets.

119

DCPS and charter schools have different ways of measuring capacity. The Public Charter School Board must establish a facilities registry, as required by law, to capture growth plans and facility conditions for public charter schools. The Office of the State Superintendent of Education collects enrollment data. The State Data Center in the DC Office of Planning develops population forecasts and tracks demographic changes. This data should be consolidated and updated on a regular basis so that decision-makers can use it to allocate resources more effectively and efficiently. ST8: THE MAIN ENTRANCE, LOBBY AND RECEPTION AREA SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN EVERY PHASE 1 MODERNIZATION. Among the DCPS schools yet to be modernized, facilities consistently received low scores for the EFEI pattern called “Welcoming Entrance.” The entrance through which students and visitors pass each day sets the tone for the entire school environment. A front door that is transparent to the street communicates a degree of welcome and openness, compared to a set of solid doors without handles that raise the suspicion of danger and completely shut out the community. An entrance that celebrates student achievement and school culture instills pride in students and community. For a relatively small investment, the face of every school yet to be modernized could be transformed, ushering in a new era and welcoming students and visitors to engage in school activities. strategies may demand longer-term planning and may require more interagency coordination in order to be implemented. However, all of the strategies are essential to addressing the systemic issues that have led to some of the most acute needs identified in this report. LT1: REASSESS THE PHASED MODERNIZATION APPROACH. The phased modernization approach has been remarkably successful in improving the quality of the learning environment in the majority of DCPS facilities within a very short period of time. However, the quality of the learning environment and the investment in lighting, finishes and furniture are often undermined by the condition of the building systems which are not addressed in the first phase of modernization.
120

Long-Term Strategies
Some of the recommended strategies for addressing the needs outlined in this Master Facilities Plan reach beyond the five-year horizon of this report. These

Since no Phase 2 modernizations have been completed, there is an opportunity to carefully redefine select modernizations to include work on building systems or fully modernize certain facilities in clusters of greatest need. A Phase 1 modernization may be insufficient to fully address the needs of facilities in areas of greatest need. Many of these schools are forecast to have strong enrollment pressures and the building systems, access for people with disabilities and building enclosures should be addressed to meet the increased demand. LT2: ALLOW FOR A SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT APPROACH THAT CAN INCLUDE ADDITIONAL SITE OR FACILITY USES. Where conditions allow, encourage more co-location and mixed-use development of school facilities. Colocated uses might include other schools or other public institutions, such as public libraries and community centers. They could incorporate private institutions of allied interest, such as Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs or arts institutions. Private development, such as commercial space, senior residential space and marketrate housing, is another proven segment to have been successfully co-located with schools around the country and in the District of Columbia that can greatly reduce the financial burden of school development. A mixed-use development approach could reduce the capital expenditure required by the city for the construction of DCPS facilities and make the financing of charter facilities more viable. It can create opportunities for co-location of uses that could support students

before and after school, enhance learning and maximize the use of facilities outside of the school calendar. Co-location of public institutions and community resources would also help position schools as community resources, even for those residents without students in the system. LT3: AS PART OF EACH SUBSEQUENT MFP, CONVENE A WORKING GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS TO ASSESS AND REFRESH THE PRINCIPLES THAT GUIDE THE PLAN. The landscape of education programming, facilities, and student needs is changing with every passing year. While the principles noted in this facilities plan provide a valuable guide for making decisions about capital investments and improvements, over time the guiding principles will need to be refreshed based on the latest thinking and conditions around public education in the District of Columbia. The working group was an invaluable asset in the formulation of this MFP. In the future, it will be important to continue to have a dialogue with objective stakeholders representing all aspects of public education in the District. A working group made of school leaders, agencies, Board of Education members, and community stakeholders should be convened to reassess the guiding principles and provide fresh guidance for subsequent facilities planning documents.

121

122

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
WORKING GROUP
The Public Education Master Facilities Plan Working Group informed and supported stakeholder groups involved in the development of a master facilities plan for public education in the District of Columbia. The Working Group provided the DC Deputy Mayor for Education (DME) with clear and sound advice on a tool to help decision makers and citizens of the District of Columbia allocate resources in an efficient and equitable manner to improve student outcomes. While the Working Group served in an advisory capacity, the DME sought specific advice from the group as to the criteria to apply when making strategic decisions about public education facilities.

Working Group Chair
Ginnie Cooper, Chief Librarian, DC Public Library

Working Group Members
Kamili Anderson, Ward 4 Representative, State Board of Education Martha Cutts, Head of School, Washington Latin Public Charter School Anthony deGuzman, Chief Operating Officer, DC Public Schools Kimberly Driggins, Associate Director for Citywide Planning, DC Office of Planning Chris Dunlavey, Department of General Services Steve Green, Director of Capital Programs and Development, DC Housing Authority Clara Hess, Director, Human Capital and Strategic Initiatives, Public Charter School Board Billy Kearney, Principal, Hart Middle School John McGaw, Director of Capital Improvements Program, Mayor’s Office of Budget and Finance, Executive Office of the Mayor Christie McKay, Director of Education, Education Strengthens Families Public Charter School Patrick Mara, Ward 1 Representative, State Board of Education David Pinder, Principal, McKinley Technical High School Wendy Scott, Chief Operating Officer, DC Prep Charter School Mary Shaffner, Executive Director, Washington Yu Ying Public Charter School Rikki Taylor, Principal, Takoma Education Campus Monica Warren-Jones, Ward 6 Representative, State Board of Education Trayon White, Ward 8 Representative, State Board of Education Stephen Zagami, Instructional Superintendent for Cluster VI, DC Public Schools

124

Working Group Alternates
Rosalyn Hughey, Deputy Director, DC Office of Planning Joshua Ghaffari, Facilities Planner, Capital Planning, DC Office of Planning Claudia Lujan, Chief of Staff to the COO, DCPS

125

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Vincent C. Gray, Mayor Jennifer Leonard, Interim Deputy Mayor for Education De’Shawn Wright, Former Deputy Mayor for Education Marc Bleyer, Capital Program Manager, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education Scheherazade Salimi, Chief of Staff, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education Jessica Sutter, Former Senior Advisor – School Quality, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education

DC AGENCY PARTNERS
District of Columbia Public Schools District of Columbia Public Charter School Board Office of the State Superintendent of Education District of Columbia Office of Planning District of Columbia Department of General Services Office of the Chief Technology Officer

CONSULTANT TEAM
Ayers Saint Gross Architects + Planners, Strategic Planners and Project Direction Feilding Nair International, K-12 Education Expertise and Project Direction Reingold LINK, Public Engagement and Communications Collaborative Strategies Group, LLC, Meeting Facilitation and Communications Decision Lens, Collaborative Decision-Making Bolan Smart Associates, Inc., Demographic and Population Forecast Analsysis Cropper GIS, LLC, Cartography

126

APPENDIX A:
SCHOOL LISTING

128
Gross Square  Footage (GSF) Capacity Utilization 27,000 57,100 70,800 207,000 8,975 15,866 7,484 2,200 12,204 9,677 3,600 70,000 271,300 79,800 72,500 42,000 77,500 180,000 35,000 47,500 9,830 86,120 98,200 69,400 215,400 82,200 63,900 95,000 56,000 168,000 47,200 355,400 78,990 37,000 40,000 27,000 31,000 29,000 23,000 36,059 40,000 66,860 53,000 325,217 1300 Allison St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 1351 Nicholson St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 21 7 1400 1st St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 5 Thomas Circle, NW, Washington, DC 20005 50,000 55,000 140,000 30,000 332 480 804 450 450 400 438 950 330 1,100 2,389 238 265 261 241 238 249 450 430 1,100 320 1,400 519 285 900 300 550 86 325 368 620 413 408 347 86 549 n/a 304 384 459 296 368 224 634 211 477 1,808 231 222 244 232 237 215 320 392 674 301 1,203 461 137 488 303 465 386 511 445 520 482 563 463 1,400 1,830 131% 82% 93% 87% 83% 67% 111% 107% 100% 100% n/a 63% 48% 102% 66% 92% 51% 67% 64% 43% 76% 97% 84% 93% 96% 100% 86% 71% 91% 61% 94% 86% 89% 48% 54% 101% 633 602 95% 160 40 25% 160 86 54% 160 158 99% n/a n/a n/a n/a Full None Full (Pre 2008) n/a None Future Full n/a Phase 1 n/a Full n/a Phase 1 None Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1 None n/a n/a Full n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Full (Pre 2008) Full (Pre 2008) n/a n/a n/a n/a 160 41 26% n/a 160 80 50% n/a 160 158 99% n/a 160 60 38% n/a 1,200 784 65% Full Good n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Good Unsatisfactory Fair n/a Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory n/a Unsatisfactory n/a Fair n/a Unsatisfactory Poor Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor n/a n/a Fair n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Poor Fair n/a n/a n/a n/a 400 254 64% Phase 1 Poor 442 269 61% None Unsatisfactory 300 202 67% n/a n/a n/a Fair TBD TBD n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD Fair TBD n/a Fair Fair n/a TBD n/a TBD TBD TBD Fair TBD TBD TBD Poor n/a TBD TBD n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD TBD n/a n/a n/a n/a Enrollment  (SY2011‐12) Modernization  Type Agency Grades PCS 4‐8 DCPS 533 48th PL., NE, Washington, DC 20019 401 Eye St., SW, Washington, DC 20024 1601 16th St., Washington, DC 20020 138 12th Street, NE  20019 330 21st Street, NE 20002 2011 Savannah Street, SE 20020 401 I Street, SW 20024 2750 14th Street, NW 20009 2017 Savannah Terrace, SE 20020 680 I Street, SW 20024 5300 Blaine St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 3401 4th St., SE, Washington, DC 20032 1755 Newtwon St., NW, Washington, DC 20010 430 Decatur St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 412 8th Street, NW 20004 3600 Alabama Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 800 Euclid St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 1346 Florida Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009 301 North Carolina Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20003 1250 Taylor Street NW 1300 Nicholson St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 1150 Michigan Ave., NE 1401 Michigan Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20017 850 26th St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 3560 Warder St., NW, Washington, DC 20010 1820 Monroe St., NE, Washington, DC 20018 801 Division Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20019 301 53rd St., SE, Washington, DC 20019 100 Peabody St., NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20011 215 G St., NE, Washington DC 20002 1200 Clifton St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 1100 Harvard St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 6008 Georgia Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20011 1503 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 220 Highview Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20032 510 Webster St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 711 N St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 1217 West Virginia Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20002 770 Kenyon St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 709 12th St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 3701 Hayes St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 1825 8th St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 3101 16th St., NW, Washington, DC 20010 DCPS DCPS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS DCPS DCPS PCS PCS PCS PCS PS‐5 PS‐8 PS‐K 18 PS‐5 18 6‐12 2 PS‐5 3 6‐12 30 9‐12 26 6‐9 2 PK‐8 23 PK‐8 7 PK‐8 18 PK‐8 39 PK‐8 26 PK‐8 17 Ungraded 2 9‐12 2 PS‐5 25 PK‐12 17 PS‐5 33 PS‐5 31 PS‐8 22 PS‐5 2 PS‐8 23 PS‐8 20 20 PS‐8 18 PS‐K 18 PS‐5 26 9‐12 3 9‐12 2 PS‐5 34 5‐8 8 PS‐5 18 PS‐5 2 9‐12 39 PS‐5 31 PS‐PK 9 PS‐PK 38 PS‐PK 2 PS‐PK 9 PS‐PK 38 PS‐PK 25 PS‐PK 26 9‐12 34 PK‐5 9 PS‐5 31 Neighborhood  Cluster Address 39 908 Wahler Place, SE 2nd Floor 20032 2008 DCPS Facility  2012‐2013 DCPS  Condition Index  Facility Condition  Index** (See Appendix G)

School  Name Achievement Preparatory Academy PCS

Aiton Elementary School

Amidon‐Bowen Elementary School

Anacostia Senior High School

AppleTree  Early Learning PCS ‐ Lincoln Park

AppleTree  Early Learning PCS ‐ Oklahoma Ave.

AppleTree  Early Learning PCS ‐Parkland

AppleTree Early Learning PCS ‐ Amidon 

AppleTree Early Learning PCS ‐ Columbia Heights

AppleTree Early Learning PCS ‐ Douglas Knoll

AppleTree Early Learning PCS ‐ Riverside 

Arts & Technology Academy PCS

Ballou Senior High School

Bancroft Elementary School

Barnard Elementary School

BASIS DC PCS

Beers Elementary School

Benjamin Banneker Senior High School

Booker T. Washington PCS for the Technical Arts

Brent Elementary School

Bridges PCS

Brightwood Education Campus

Brookland

Brookland Education Campus at Bunker Hill

Browne Education Campus

Bruce‐Monroe Elementary School at Park View

Burroughs Education Campus

Burrville Elementary School

C.W. Harris Elementary School

Capital City PCS

Capitol Hill Montessori at Logan

Cardozo Senior High School

Carlos Rosario International PCS

Center City PCS: Brightwood Campus

Center City PCS: Capitol Hill Campus

Center City PCS: Congress Heights Campus

Center City PCS: Petworth Campus

Center City PCS: Shaw Campus

Center City PCS: Trinidad Campus

Cesar Chavez PCS: Bruce Prep Campus

Cesar Chavez PCS: Capitol Hill Campus

Cesar Chavez PCS: Parkside Campus

Cleveland Elementary School

Columbia Heights Education Campus

Community Academy PCS ‐ Amos I

Community Academy PCS ‐ Amos II

Community Academy PCS ‐ Amos III

Community Academy PCS ‐ Butler Bilingual

*Scheduled to close per the DCPS Consolidation and Reorganization Plan **2008 and 2013 FCI Studies were conducted by different organizations using different methodologies.

Gross Square  Footage (GSF) Capacity Utilization 0 n/a n/a 547 105 184 n/a 353 332 410 280 183 1,014 181 517 593 394 403 450 160 135 248 303 415 495 742 350 438 59,000 193,800 302,000 95,100 62,994 80,660 151,558 47,000 67,600 21,482 54,908 60,200 77,700 85,709 275,000 180,700 116,872 170,000 550 400 1,284 410 685 758 1,058 553 382 477 365 356 712 440 1,000 1,000 650 912 457 395 348 350 n/a 401 239 n/a 233 641 765 1,110 547 498 378 240 237 n/a 396 810 67 412 530 41% 103% 54% 99% 72% 66% 127% 54% 99% 28% 110% 80% 47% 100% n/a 73% 60% n/a 57% 94% 101% 105% 99% 130% 79% 66% 67% n/a 90% 81% n/a 63% 58% 93% 92% 93% 96% n/a n/a n/a Full Phase 1 Future Full Future Full n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Full None n/a None n/a n/a n/a Phase 1 n/a None n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a None None n/a Full Full None Full Phase 1 46% n/a 104% n/a n/a n/a 41% None 100% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Good Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Good Unsatisfactory n/a Unsatisfactory n/a Unsatisfactory n/a n/a Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Good Good n/a Fair Unsatisfactory 50% Future Full Unsatisfactory n/a n/a n/a 271,300 17,808 71,100 12,000 11,000 70,090 50,000 39,746 19,500 181,000 72,800 167,500 343,400 46,000 83,000 86,000 12,000 15,600 12,000 250 1,100 250 126 680 557 398 1,100 500 445 1,090 200 300 426 720 339 n/a 449 105 1,105 195 111 57% n/a n/a n/a n/a Fair n/a TBD n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD TBD TBD TBD n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD Fair n/a Fair n/a TBD n/a TBD TBD Good n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Fair TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Good

Enrollment  (SY2011‐12)

Modernization  Type

School  Name Community Academy PCS ‐ Online PCS DCPS PCS DCPS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS PCS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS PK‐6 PK‐5 15 39 6‐8 39 6‐8 4 1‐8 23  9‐12 11 PS‐5 1 38 PS‐5 7 PS‐5 36 6‐8 39 PS‐8 24 PS‐5 39 9‐12 30 645 Milwaukee Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20032 2959 Carlton Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20018 620 Milwaukee Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20032 2435 Alabama Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 1200 S St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 1500 Mississippi Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 2525 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 4650 Benning Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20019 1401 Brentwood Prkwy., NE, Washington, DC 20002 1819 35th St., NW, Washington, DC 20002 601 Mississippi Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20032 3950 37th St., NW, Washington, DC 20008 425 Chesapeake St., SE, Washington, DC 20032 PS‐8 26 1345 Potomac Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20002 4095 Minnesota Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20019 PS‐8 25 725 19th St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 PS‐8 5 2425 N St., NW, Washington, DC 20037 33 4650 Benning Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20019 PS‐6 39 3999 8th St., SE, Washington, DC 20032 PS‐4 37 2501 M. L. King, Jr., Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 21 1720 1st Street NE PK‐6 20 3700 Oakview Terrace, NE, Washington, DC 20010 33,000 63,800 7‐8 25 1830 Constitution Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20002 155,100 Ungraded 1 2333 Ontario Rd., NW, Washington, DC 20009 9,190 PK‐5 15 3301 Lowell St., NW, Washington, DC 20008 49,100 12 26 1700 East Capitol St., NE, Washington, DC 20003 288,800 PS‐3 39 PS‐3 29 4301 9th St. SE, Washington, DC 20032 PS‐1 27 1017 New Jersey Avenue, SE 20003 PS‐3 39 3400 Wheeler Road, SE 20032 PS‐10 18 4501 Kansas Avenue, NW 20011 4‐8 2 3600 Georgia Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20010 9‐12 21 1301 New Jersey Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001 9‐12 4 3500 R St., NW, Washington, DC 20007 PS‐5 31 5600 Eads St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 7‐8 11 3815 Fort Dr., NW, Washington, DC 20016 PS‐3 18 5601 E Capitol Street, SE 20011 4‐8 21 701 Edgewood St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 PK‐3 21 707 Edgewood St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 PS‐3 32 100 41st St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 PK‐5 2 1420 Columbia Rd., NW, Washington, DC 20009 3029 14th Street NW  PS‐5 33 4430 H St., SE. Washington, DC 20019 PS‐2 2 3324 16th Street, NW 20010 PS‐8 17 6315 5th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 PK‐5

Agency Grades PCS PS‐8

Neighborhood  Cluster Address 18 1351 Nicholson St., NW, Washington, DC 20011

2008 DCPS Facility  2012‐2013 DCPS  Condition Index  Facility Condition  Index** (See Appendix G)

Community Academy PCS ‐ Rand

Coolidge Senior High School

Creative Minds PCS

Davis Elementary School*

DC Bilingual PCS ‐ 14th St

DC Bilingual PCS ‐ Columbia

DC Prep: Benning Campus

DC Prep: Edgewood Elementary Campus

DC Prep: Edgewood Middle Campus

DC Scholars

Deal Middle School

Drew Elementary School

Duke Ellington School of the Arts

Dunbar Senior High School

E.L. Haynes PCS ‐ Georgia Avenue

E.L. Haynes PCS ‐ Kansas Avenue

Eagle Academy PCS ‐ The Eagle Center at McGoney

Eagle Academy PCS‐ New Jersey Avenue

Early Childhood Academy PCS ‐ Johenning Campus

Early Childhood Academy PCS ‐ Walter Washington  Campus

Eastern Senior High School

Eaton Elementary School

Education Strengthens Families (Esf) PCS

Eliot‐Hine Middle School

Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS

Emery

Excel Academy PCS

Ferebee‐Hope Elementary School*

Fletcher‐Johnson

Francis‐Stevens Education Campus

Friendship PCS ‐ Blow‐Pierce Elementary & Middle

Friendship PCS ‐ Chamberlain Elementary & Middle

Friendship PCS ‐ Collegiate Academy

Friendship PCS ‐ Southeast Elementary Academy

Friendship PCS ‐ Woodridge Elementary & Middle

Friendship PCS‐ Technology Preparatory Academy

Garfield Elementary School

Garrison Elementary School

Green

H.D. Cooke Elementary School

H.D. Woodson Senior High School

Hamilton (Youth Services Center)*

Hardy Middle School

Hart Middle School

Hearst Elementary School

17,400 73,200

180 515

257 341

143% 66%

Phase 1 None

Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory

TBD Unsatisfactory

Hendley Elementary School

129

*Scheduled to close per the DCPS Consolidation and Reorganization Plan **2008 and 2013 FCI Studies were conducted by different organizations using different methodologies.

130
Gross Square  Footage (GSF) Capacity Utilization 76,000 0 30,000 59,900 4,500 37,000 5,600 39,600 41,329 100,000 32,000 50,000 0 98,900 84,400 109,000 182,500 115,000 57,100 88,300 50,000 83,400 65,500 137,000 100,000 86,000 154,000 113,600 101,400 110,100 63,000 8,653 21,755 15,500 65,000 66,900 65,528 112,000 110,000 110,800 45,800 21,903 162,700 3100 Fort Lincoln Dr., NE, Washington, DC 20018 1404 Jackson St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 1250 Constitution Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20002 33 5600 East Capitol St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 103,800 24,243 46,800 37,333 517 1,500 1,000 1,000 550 516 500 530 400 200 121 125 400 412 350 400 610 520 300 270 470 480 368 325 700 398 320 465 402 600 328 178 256 386 313 345 1,069 531 1,032 277 707 404 375 290 184 79 121 361 258 293 211 200 261 109 290 357 161 327 292 210 1,015 252 570 263 570 548 400 382 550 142 26% 96% 96% 46% 25% 55% 44% 55% 121% 79% 67% 71% 53% 103% 50% 137% 81% 71% 73% 92% 65% 97% 90% 63% 84% 53% 33% 50% 36% 107% 76% 34% 89% 90% 30% 608 553 91% 281 272 97% 302 359 119% 292 308 105% Full n/a n/a n/a n/a Phase 1 Full None Phase 1 Full None Phase 1 Full (Pre 2008) None Phase 1 n/a n/a n/a None None None Phase 1 Phase 1 n/a n/a n/a Phase 1 None n/a None None None None Phase 1 None None n/a Phase 1 n/a 360 307 85% n/a 163 154 94% n/a 600 522 87% n/a 120 129 108% n/a 398 223 56% None n/a n/a n/a n/a Fair n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory Good Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor n/a Unsatisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory n/a Unsatisfactory n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory n/a Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory n/a n/a Unsatisfactory n/a 202 196 97% n/a n/a Unsatisfactory 430 425 99% n/a n/a 399 407 102% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory n/a n/a n/a n/a Fair n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD TBD Fair TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Poor TBD n/a n/a n/a Fair Poor Poor Poor TBD n/a n/a n/a TBD Fair TBD Good TBD Good Poor TBD Fair Poor n/a TBD n/a Enrollment  (SY2011‐12) Modernization  Type Agency Grades PCS PK‐8 PCS PCS DCPS PCS PCS PCS PCS DCPS PCS PCS PCS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS PCS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS PCS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS PCS 6‐8 PS‐5 25 PS‐8 22 PS‐5 24 PS‐5 1 PK‐5 13 PK‐12 19 PS‐5 38 5‐8 18 PS‐6 39 9‐12 22 PS‐5 25 659 G St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 1001 Monroe St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 3301 Wheeler Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20032 4400 Iowa Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20011 1351 Alabama Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20032 100 Gallatin St., NE, Washington, DC 20011 4430 Newark St., NW, Washington, DC 20016 2200 Champlain St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 PS‐6 44 Ungraded 2 3047 15th Street, NW 20009 4201 M. L. King Jr. Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20032 PS‐5 17 1375 Missouri Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20011 PS‐PK 30 1600 Taylor St. NE PS‐8 19 501 Riggs Rd., NE, Washington, DC 20011 PS‐8 21 101 T Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 PS‐8 22 1900 Evarts St., NE, Washington, DC 20018 PK‐5 10 5701 Broad Branch Rd., NW, Washington, DC 20015 6‐8 34 1700 Q St., SE, Washington, DC 20020 PS‐8 33 4801 Benning Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20019 PS‐8 7 421 P Street, NW, Washington DC PS‐12 37 2600 DOUGLAS ROAD SE PS‐6 39 3200 6th St., SE, Washington, DC 20032 PS‐5 32 3375 Minnesota Ave., SE, Washington, DC  PK‐5 13 5001 Dana Pl., NW, Washington, DC 20016 PS‐5 28 1919 15th St., SE, Washington, DC 20020 PS‐5 29 1300 44th St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 6‐8 31 301 49th St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 6‐8 38 1400 Bruce Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20020 6‐8 9 801 7th St., NW, Washington, DC 20024 PK‐5 11 4130 Albermarle St., NW, Washington, DC 20016 PS‐5 25 660 K St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 PK‐4 20 1328 Florida Avenue, NW 20009 PK‐6 39 3100 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave., SE, Washington, DC  PK‐8 19 6130 North Capitol St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 7‐12 31 1027 45th St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 PK‐5 4 3219 O St., NW, Washington, DC 20007 6‐8 3 405 Howard Pl., NW, Washington, DC, 20059 PK‐3 34 3000 Pennsylvania Ave,. SE, Washington, DC 20020 K‐6 37 701 Howard Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20020 7‐8 37 2450 M. L. King Jr. Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 PK‐5 31 1100 50th Pl., NE, Washington, DC 20019 9‐12 18 4301 13th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 PK‐8 21 2917 8th St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 Neighborhood  Cluster Address 19 6200 Kansas Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20017 2008 DCPS Facility  2012‐2013 DCPS  Condition Index  Facility Condition  Index** (See Appendix G)

School  Name Hope Community PCS: Lamond Campus

Hope Community PCS: Tolson Campus

Hospitality Senior High PCS

Houston Elementary School

Howard Road Academy Middle PCS ‐ MLK Ave

Howard Road Academy PCS ‐ Howard Road

Howard Road Academy PCS ‐ Penn Ave

Howard University Middle School PCS

Hyde‐Addison Elementary School

IDEA‐ Integrated Design and Electronic Academy PCS

Ideal Academy PCS

Imagine Southeast PCS

Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS

J.O. Wilson Elementary School

Janney Elementary School

Jefferson Middle School

John Hayden Johnson Middle School

Kelly Miller Middle School

Kenilworth Elementary School*

Ketcham Elementary School

Key Elementary School

Kimball Elementary School

King Elementary School

KIPP DC: AIM, College Prep, Discover, Heights

KIPP DC: Grow, Lead, WILL

KIPP DC: KEY, LEAP, Promise

Kramer Middle School

Lafayette Elementary School

Langdon Education Campus

Langley Educational Campus

LaSalle‐Backus Education Campus

Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS (LAMB) ‐  Michigan Park Campus Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS (LAMB) ‐  Missouri Ave LAYC Career Academy PCS

Leckie Elementary School

Ludlow‐Taylor Elementary School

Luke C. Moore Academy Senior High School

M.C. Terrell/McGogney Elementary School*

MacFarland Middle School*

Malcolm X Elementary School

Mamie D. Lee School*

Mann Elementary School

Marie Reed Elementary School

Marshall Elementary School*

Mary McLeod Bethune Day Academy PCS

Maury Elementary School

Maya Angelou PCS ‐ Evans Middle

*Scheduled to close per the DCPS Consolidation and Reorganization Plan **2008 and 2013 FCI Studies were conducted by different organizations using different methodologies.

Gross Square  Footage (GSF) Capacity Utilization 37,333 37,333 282,000 61,900 62,200 76,900 99,700 22,330 47,700 83,900 27,000 59,400 61,238 75,900 47,984 59,400 78,300 128,351 83,800 37,800 194,300 180,000 69,400 21,000 38,500 59,200 75,500 73,600 28,000 62,800 156,000 331,900 19,687 22,400 99,975 163,000 74,000 7,760 65,000 28,000 67,200 80,500 230,400 82,700 650 448 400 300 350 450 465 202 281 892 1,059 70 150 425 340 440 n/a 325 250 352 400 1,000 480 1,050 228 417 557 592 236 234 936 329 220 328 310 100 384 442 125 n/a 230 994 120 157 344 340 527 84 265 227 n/a 89 n/a 154 370 320 324 321 350 355 337 308 700 359 51% 91% 101% 99% 86% 106% 57% 103% 89% 51% 49% 82% 103% 29% 85% 95% 62% n/a 26% 94% 171% 105% 81% 100% 120% n/a 82% 91% n/a 22% n/a 32% 360 352 98% 309 203 66% 400 327 82% 488 556 114% None Phase 1 n/a Full (Pre 2008) n/a None Phase 1 None Full (Pre 2008) n/a None None n/a Full None n/a Phase 1 None Full (Pre 2008) None n/a n/a None Full n/a Phase 1 Full n/a Full n/a Phase 1 n/a n/a None n/a None 270 122 45% n/a 480 315 66% Phase 1 550 469 85% Full (Pre 2008) 736 n/a n/a n/a 622 531 85% n/a n/a n/a Fair Unsatisfactory n/a Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory n/a Fair n/a Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Fair n/a Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory n/a Fair Unsatisfactory n/a Unsatisfactory n/a Fair Unsatisfactory n/a Unsatisfactory n/a Good n/a Unsatisfactory Good n/a Good n/a Unsatisfactory n/a Unsatisfactory n/a n/a n/a 800 670 84% Full (Pre 2008) Fair 82 82 100% n/a n/a 200 296 148% n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD n/a TBD TBD TBD n/a Good TBD n/a TBD n/a Poor Fair TBD TBD n/a Poor Fair n/a TBD Poor n/a TBD Fair TBD Fair n/a TBD TBD Fair n/a TBD Fair n/a TBD TBD TBD n/a TBD Fair TBD Poor

Enrollment  (SY2011‐12)

Modernization  Type

School  Name Maya Angelou PCS: Evans High School PCS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS PCS 9‐11 PS‐5 PK‐5 PS‐4 PS‐8 PS‐5 PS‐8 8‐9 PS‐5 6‐8 9‐12 PS‐8 PK‐5 PS‐5 6‐12 9‐12 PS‐1 PS‐5 PS‐5 PS‐8 PK‐12 7 6‐8 PK‐5 PS‐PK PS‐6 2 39 16 3 18 21 37 7 25 5 32 4300 C St., SE, Washington, DC 20019 2130 G St., NW, Washington, DC 20037 215 G St., NE, Washington DC 20002 1503 10th St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 2501 M. L. King, Jr., Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 301 Douglas St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 4300 13th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 925 Rhode Island Ave, NW 2001 10th St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 7800 14th St., NW, Washington, DC 20012 1328 Florida Av. NW 401 Mississippi Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20032 37 6 1730 R St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 2400 Shannon Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20020 17 15 Kennedy St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 18 4301 13th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 31 4800 Meade St., NE, Washington, DC 20019  32 420 34th St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 32 100 41st Street, NE, Washington 18 915 Spring Rd., NW, Washington, DC 20010 34 1650 30th St., SE, Washington, DC 20020 25 920 F St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 18 1350 Upshur St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 20 4401 8th St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 33 4601 Texas Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20019 23 704 26th St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 PK‐12 22 1800 Perry St. NE PS‐K 25 425 C St., NE, Washington, DC  20002 PS‐5 26 305 15th St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 6‐9 17 5800 8th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 PS‐6 39 4399 South Capitol Terrace, SW, Washington, DC 20032 4‐8 1 2020 19th St., NW, Washington, DC 20008  PS‐3 15 2801 Calvert St., NW, Washington, DC 20008 PS‐5 34 2200 Minnesota Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 7‐12 25 1375 E St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 PS‐8 22 2725 10th St., NE, Washington, DC 20018 9‐11 39 908 Wahler Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20032 PS‐5 33 219 50th St., SE, Washington, DC 20019 PK‐5 12 4810 36th St., NW, Washington, DC 20008 PS‐1 6 3220 16th St. NW PS‐5 37 2330 Pomeroy Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20020 PS‐5 25 601 15th St., NE, Washington, DC, 20002 2 2501 11th Street, NW PK‐8 3 2120 13th  Ave., NW, Washington, DC  9‐12 21 151 T St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 Ungraded 33 5600 East Capitol St., NE, Washington, DC 20019

Agency Grades PCS 9‐12

Neighborhood  Cluster Address 33 5600 East Capitol St., NE, Washington, DC 20019

2008 DCPS Facility  2012‐2013 DCPS  Condition Index  Facility Condition  Index** (See Appendix G)

Maya Angelou PCS‐Young Adult Learning Center

McKinley Technology Senior High School

Meridian PCS

Meyer

Miner Elementary School

Moten Elementary School

Mundo Verde PCS

Murch Elementary School

Nalle Elementary School

National Collegiate Preparatory PCS

Noyes Education Campus

Options PCS ‐ Middle  and High School

Orr Elementary School

Oyster‐Adams Bilingual School (Adams) (Upper)

Oyster‐Adams Bilingual School (Oyster) (Lower)

Patterson Elementary School

Paul PCS

Payne Elementary School

Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster)

Perry St. Prep PCS (Upper and Lower)

Phelps Architecture, Construction, and Engineering Senior  DCPS High School DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS

Plummer Elementary School

Potomac Lighthouse PCS

Powell Elementary School

Prospect Learning Center*

Randle Highlands Elementary School

Raymond Education Campus

Richard Wright PCS

River Terrace Elementary School

Ronald H. Brown Middle School*

Roosevelt Senior High School

Roots PCS

Ross Elementary School

Savoy Elementary School

School for Educational Evolution and Development (SEED)  PCS School Without Walls Senior High School

School‐Within‐A‐School at Logan Annex

Seaton Elementary School

Septima Clark PCS

Shaed Education Campus

Sharpe Health School*

Shaw Junior High School

Shaw Middle School at Garnet‐Patterson*

Shepherd Elementary School

79,700 7,554 66,200

342 120 325

331 53 252

97% 44% 78%

None n/a Phase 1

Unsatisfactory n/a Unsatisfactory

Poor n/a TBD

Shining Stars Montessori Academy PCS

Simon Elementary School

131

*Scheduled to close per the DCPS Consolidation and Reorganization Plan **2008 and 2013 FCI Studies were conducted by different organizations using different methodologies.

132
Gross Square  Footage (GSF) Capacity Utilization 43,000 132,000 225,000 99,540 83,792 64,750 99,325 104,294 15,500 87,600 74,992 52,000 28,076 69,600 66,600 77,500 58,000 69,600 49,400 104,200 13,658 13,730 49,000 49,500 40,000 69,300 69,600 86,375 66,600 144,900 45,000 137,700 376,448 0 250 368 350 500 587 278 500 520 508 560 550 1,600 121 325 700 215 500 402 n/a 418 349 225 349 253 367 521 244 475 346 n/a 426 302 1,633 105 350 451 600 305 500 489 450 423 400 301 75% 94% 98% 51% 129% 80% n/a 60% 107% 90% 95% 72% 73% 89% 88% 95% 67% n/a 76% 55% 102% 87% 400 390 98% 320 327 102% 400 235 59% 200 158 79% n/a Phase 1 Full (Pre 2008) n/a n/a Phase 1 Phase 1 Full n/a Phase 1 n/a Full n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a None None Full Phase 1 n/a n/a None Full n/a 450 306 68% Future Full 410 403 98% None 320 347 108% Full 500 355 71% Full 287 234 82% n/a n/a Unsatisfactory Good Unsatisfactory Poor n/a Unsatisfactory Fair n/a n/a Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Good n/a Unsatisfactory n/a Good n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Good Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory n/a n/a Good n/a 910 612 67% Future Full n/a 636 348 55% Full Fair 344 242 70% None Poor Fair TBD TBD n/a TBD TBD TBD TBD n/a TBD TBD n/a n/a TBD TBD TBD n/a TBD TBD TBD n/a n/a n/a TBD n/a Unsatisfactory Good TBD TBD TBD n/a TBD TBD n/a Enrollment  (SY2011‐12) Modernization  Type Agency Grades DCPS PS‐5 DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS PCS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS PCS PCS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS DCPS PCS DCPS DCPS PCS Ungraded 2 3014 14th Street, NW 20009 9‐12 11 PK‐8 35 3100 Erie St., SE, Washington, DC 20020 4340 Connecticut Ave., NW, Building 52, Washington, DC 20016 PS‐8 21 705 Edgewood St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 28 2330 Pomeroy Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20020 PK‐8 17 6201 5th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 PS‐8 23 1299 Neal St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 PS‐8 18 1338 Farragut St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 PS‐4 26 420 12th St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 PK‐5 20 220 Taylor St., NE, Washington, DC  9‐12 25 300 Bryant St., NW, Washington, DC 20002 9‐12 23 1920 Bladensburg Rd., NE, Washington, DC 20002 9‐12 18 4715 16th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 5‐8 18 4115 16th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 PS‐8 8 1125 New Jersey Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001 27 1150 5th Street, SE PS‐5 26 1001 G St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 PS ‐8 25 1234 4th St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 PS‐5 38 1500 Mississippi Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 PS‐5 2 3101 13th St., NW, Washington, DC 20010 PS‐8 18 800 Ingraham St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 PK‐3 22 2315 18th Pl., NE, Washington, DC 20018 9‐12 37 2427 M. L. King Jr. Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 PS‐5 8 1200 L St., NW, Washington, DC 20005 PS‐5 30 650 Anacostia Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20019 9‐12 2 3047 15th Street, NW 20009 PS‐8 17 7010 Piney Branch Rd., NW, Washington, DC 20012 5‐8 25 410 E St., NE, Washington, DC 20002  PK‐5 14 4001 Calvert St., NW, Washington, DC 20007 PS‐5 36 2701 Naylor Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20020 PK‐12 26 1901 Independence Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20003 9‐12 23 2500 Benning Rd., NE, Washington, DC 20002 6‐8 32 3650 Ely Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20019 Neighborhood  Cluster Address 30 4400 Brooks St., NW, Washington, DC 20019 2008 DCPS Facility  2012‐2013 DCPS  Condition Index  Facility Condition  Index** (See Appendix G)

School  Name Smothers Elementary School

Sousa Middle School

Spingarn Senior High School*

St. Coletta Special Education PCS

Stanton Elementary School

Stoddert Elementary School

Stuart‐Hobson Middle School (Capitol Hill Cluster)

Takoma Education Campus

The Next Step ‐ El Proximo Paso PCS

Thomas Elementary School

Thomson Elementary School

Thurgood Marshall Academy PCS

Tree of Life Community PCS

Truesdell Education Campus

Tubman Elementary School

Turner Elementary School

Two Rivers PCS ‐ Upper and Lower

Tyler Elementary School

Van Ness

Walker Jones Education Campus

Washington Latin PCS: Middle School Campus (Decatur)

Washington Latin PCS: Upper School Campus (Upshur)

Washington Math, Science & Technology PCS (WMST)

Washington Metropolitan High School

Washington Yu Ying PCS

Watkins Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster)

West Education Campus

Wheatley Education Campus

Whittier Education Campus

Wilkinson

William E. Doar Junior PCS: NE Campus

Winston Education Campus*

Woodrow Wilson Senior High School*

YouthBuild LAYC PCS

*Scheduled to close per the DCPS Consolidation and Reorganization Plan **2008 and 2013 FCI Studies were conducted by different organizations using different methodologies.

133

www.fieldingnair.com 202.684.6425

dc@asg-architects.com www.asg-architects.com 202.628.1033

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful