2013 Public Education Master Facilities Plan

2013 PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN

for the

DISTRICT of COLUMBIA

Ayers Saint Gross Architects + Planners | Fielding Nair International

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

CHAPTER 1: MASTER FACILITY PLAN VISION...........................................11Background................................................................................................................. 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......................................19Project 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....................31Premise ....................................................................................................................... 32 Purpose....................................................................................................................... 32 Space Per Student....................................................................................................... 34 Enrollment................................................................................................................... 36 Utilization.................................................................................................................... 38 Findings....................................................................................................................... 41

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

TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER FIVE: FACILITY CONDITION, QUALITY AND EFFICACY......63Premise........................................................................................................................ 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........................................93Understanding 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...................................................113Strategic 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 DCEvery 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 Districts Capital Improvement Plan, which includes detailed plans for individual schools.

A PROCESS INFORMED BY DATA AND STAKEHOLDER INPUTThe 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

VISIONThrough 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 NEEDCluster 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 NEEDTo 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 NEEDCOMBINED ASSESSMENT OF NEED

A S S E S S M EN T OF N E E DDe 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 Cluster44 39 43 28 37 9 27

26 33 32 34

36

35

LEGEND 22 Neighborhood Cluster38

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 NEEDSSHORT-TERM STRATEGIESThe 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 communitys 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 citys schools. A well-executed modernization program for middle schools would send a clear message to families of the citys 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


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


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 STRATEGIESSome 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 1Master Facility Plan Vision

BACKGROUNDAs 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 Mayors 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 PROBLEMAt 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.

VISIONThrough 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 STATEMENTTo 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 Districts commitment to education and its pride in its future generations.

13

KEY MAP

DCPS & CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITY LOCATIONS22 23

D C PS & C HART E R S C HO O L FAC IL I TY L O C ATI O N SBrookland, 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 6Cluster 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



14

GUIDING PRINCIPLESExtensive 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 students 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 PRACTICESThe 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 dont 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 2Master Facility Plan Process

PROJECT COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACHThe 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 by20

STAKEHOLDER MEETINGSThe 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 GROUPThe 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 DMEs 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 FRAMEWORKMembers 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 WHATS THE VISIONDuring 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 PRINCIPLESWhat matters most?

DATA SETS

What does the data tell us?FACILITY CONDITION & QUALITY

GEOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENTWhere 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

CAPACITYAvg 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 PRINCIPLESDuring 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 MEMOSWorking 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 COMMENTSBefore 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 PRINCIPLESThe 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 PRINCIPLESDuring 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 STUDIES2008 AND 2010 DCPS FACILITY MASTER PLANSThe DCPSs 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 SpacesThe 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 ComponentsThis phase extends the life of each school facility through upgrades to building systems, such as electrical wiring and heating and cooling equipment.

High School ModernizationsAll 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 STUDYIn 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 SpacesThe 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 PLANThe 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 SCHOOLSThroughout 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 SETSThe 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 ASSESSMENTNEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER LEVEL ANALYSISThe 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.

CAPACITYSchool 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).

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

UTILIZATIONCluster utilization was determined by averaging each schools utilization rate within the cluster. Each schools utilization rate was determined by dividing its enrollment by its capacity.

26

KEY MAP

DCPS & CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITY LOCATIONS22 23

D C PS & CHARTE R S C HO O L FAC ILI TY L O C ATI O N SBrookland, 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 6Cluster 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



27

POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT FORECASTThe 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 Plannings 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 CHILDRENTo 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 CONDITIONThe 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 EFFICACYPart 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 QUALITYThe 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 PARTICIPATIONFacility 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 BANDINGFor 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

EQUITYThe 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 3Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization

ADEQUATE SPACE TO SUPPORT QUALITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS PREMISEThe 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 Mayors 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.

PURPOSEThis 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 RH 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 sDCPS 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 addional 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


33

SPACE PER STUDENTTo 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 schools 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.

DCPSThe 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 Capacity650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

DCPS

PCS

SFperEnrolledStudent

SFperStudentCapacity

Figure 3.2

DCPS AnalysisAll 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 SCHOOLSGiven 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 COMPAREDCharter 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.

ENROLLMENTBetween 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 StudentSchool Types by Space per Enrolled Student1000 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

UTILIZATIONFrom 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 Districts 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 CLUSTERTo 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 REnrollment data for both DCPS and Charter Schools was gathered from the Oce of the State Superintendant of Educaon (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



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 RH 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 esCluster ulizaon was determined by taking each schools enrollment and dividing by the facilitys capacity. DCPS enrollment numbers are from the Oce of the State Superintendant of Educaon (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 enrollment11 20 2 14 42 15 1 3 21 22 10 17 41 19 16

40

12

18

13

24

numbers plus the addional 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% Ulizaon 26-50% Ulizaon 51-75% Ulizaon 76-100% Ulizaon >100% Ulizaon

Figure 3.7 40



40

FINDINGSENROLLMENTEnrollment 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.

CAPACITYThere 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 Types170 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.

UTILIZATIONAlthough 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

OPPORTUNITIESMeetings 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 4Population and Enrollment Forecast

UNDERSTANDING THE FUTURE OF STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN THE DISTRICT PREMISESThe 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 todays 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 Plans 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.

PURPOSEThis 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 CLUSTER2000-2012 CHANGE IN SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN

D E MOGRAPHI CSPopulaon data was gathered from the Oce of Planning (OP). School Age Populaon for this map includes children aending 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 Populaon Present in Cluster 1-500 Increase 1-200 Decrease > 200 Decrease

Figure 4.1



49

Figure 4.2

POPULATION FORECASTThe District of Columbias 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 RANGESFigures 4.6 - 4.7 shows two population forecasts. Figure 4.6 is an extra

2013 Public Education Master Facilities Plan

Documents

Transcript of 2013 Public Education Master Facilities Plan