Back to DC Public Schools main page

Clifford B. Janey 
Superintendent's recommendations for initial school closing and consolidation plan
May 15, 2006

DCPSWatch Home

Major Areas
DC Public Schools
Mayoral Takeover
Special Education

State Education Agency
State Education Office
Vouchers
WTU
Wilson S.H.S.

Calendars
Board of Education
School Year

Columns
 Elizabeth Davis
Ron Drake
Erich Martel
Nathan Saunders

Directories
Schools

Letters

Links

Organizations
 DC Education Compact
Parents United
Proposition 100%

Press

Search

DCWatch Home

 District of Columbia Public Schools

SUPERINTENDENT’S RECOMMENDATION

OVERVIEW

The District of Columbia Public School system operates and maintains 147 school buildings for educational purposes. The average age of our school buildings is 63 years. The effects of aging structures, long-standing deferred maintenance, and delayed improvements have created unsatisfactory conditions for teaching and learning, and health and safety. Moreover, they have compromised common decency by allowing our children to attend some schools that are in deplorable conditions.

In order to provide school facilities that support and encourage an environment for learning, the School Administration has undertaken an assessment of all educational facilities with the expressed purpose of developing a plan for aligning the inventory with the school age population and modernizing the buildings to support the Master Education Plan.

An enrollment decline has created a situation in which DCPS must continue to maintain over 1.9 million square feet of underutilized space in schools. While no "rightsizing" program is easy to implement, DCPS must take the appropriate actions to efficiently and effectively make use of its physical building and land assets. To this end, the Board of Education has directed that we identify approximately 1 million square feet of school space by July 2006, and another 2 million square feet by July 2008, that could potentially be leveraged for educational, operational, and even capital development enhancements.

Various options have been evaluated and are highlighted as follows:

  • Educational enhancements through the replication of exemplary programs
  • Facilitating the need for capital improvements as swing space sites
  • Public/Private Development Partnerships
  • Community Use
    • Parent Resource Centers 
    • Adult Literacy Programs
    • Early Childhood programs 
    • Wrap Around Services
  • Co-location opportunities 
    • District Agency
    • Public Charter Schools
    • Others (non-profits and/or higher education organizations)
  • Charter Leases

Alignment of Resources

The Master Facilities Plan will focus on the appropriate allocation of resources based on a number of predetermined evaluation criterion. Both the city and the school district have established factors, through resolutions and the development of the Master Education Plan, for analyzing existing facilities. Data collection for the Facilities Condition Assessment and the Master Facilities Plan gathered information necessary to satisfy these criterions.

Based on the Board of Education resolution R06-52, which clearly delineated the core beliefs and guiding principles for the upcoming effort, and recognizing the tremendous impact these actions will have on the entire community, public hearings were held. These hearings were guided by the Declaration of Education's Goal 3: Create a culture of transparency, open communication, and collaboration to support high-quality teaching and learning in every classroom in every school. Work sessions were facilitated with communities to discuss the Master Education Plan, the Master Facilities Plan, and the potential impact on the school environment.

After engagement with the community, recommendations were formulated into five Criteria for School Consolidation and Rightsizing of Space. They are summarized as Criteria Categories within the five basic Criteria below.

  • Educational Value (Master Education Plan)
  • Schools as Centers of the Community
  • Demographics
  • Facilities Condition, Utilization, and Suitability
  • Operational Efficiency

As a result of this process, it was determined that the criteria for consolidations significantly reflected the overall views of the community. The criteria were subsequently used to measure each school environment against its ability to meet the requirements as established by the Master Education Plan, a community’s commitment to its schools, student population data, facilities data, and budgetary efficiency information. Through a comprehensive assessment of these factors, recommendations in compliance with the Board of Education’s direction are being forwarded for consideration.

EDUCATIONAL CONSOLIDATION

FLETCHER-JOHNSON EDUCATIONAL CENTER
Planning Area - C / Cluster 1
302,000 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required

Percent Proficient
Math
% out of 100		 Reading
% out of 100		 Combine
Reading 51 21.6  

SCHOOLS AS CENTER OF COMMUNITY

Building Use Agreements Population Retention
# of Students in school Boundary # of Students in other schools in Cluster % of Students attendance in Boundary % of Students attendance in Cluster
2 67 77 32% 69%

DEMOGRAPHICS

Walking Distance Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
3 5 4 Decreasing

FACILITIES CONDUCTION, UNTILIZATION AND SUITABILITY

Facilities Condition Index Capacity Utilization Accessibility Site Site
Acreage
Actual FCI Condition Assessment vs. 2007 enroll Projected Enrollment vs. Capacity   Amenities
0.52 32 814 vs. 435 53% Unsatisfactory 33 15.26
Budget and Cost: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA

Building Assessments Budget Cost Yes or No Utility Historical Significance
Cost to Correct Cost to Replace Cost of Capital Improvements (by Capacity) Operation Expenses per Student Weighted student formula Meet? Cost per SF 2004 w/10%
$36,015,010 $69,460,000 31 65 Yes $1.80 No

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Majority population out of boundary, large underutilized building, three schools within walking distance 
  2. Consolidate elementary students into Nalle
  3. Consolidate middle students into Ron Brown
  4. Fletcher-Johnson made available
  5. The entire building would be a leasing opportunity or PPDP

NALLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - C / Cluster 1
83,900 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
Math 44.9 60.7  

SCHOOLS AS CENTER OF COMMUNITY

Building Use Agreements Population Retention
# of Students in school Boundary # of Students in other schools in Cluster % of Students attendance in Boundary % of Students attendance in Cluster
0 123 79 42% 69%

DEMOGRAPHICS

Walking Distance Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
2 8 4 Decreasing

FACILITIES CONDITION, UTILIZATION AND SUITABILITY

Facilities Condition Index Capacity Utilization Accessibility Site Site
Acreage
Actual FCI Condition Assessment vs. 2007 enroll Projected Enrollment vs. Capacity   Amenities
0.66 73 460 vs. 308 67% Unsatisfactory 6 6.52

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA

Building Assessments Budget Cost Yes or No Utility Historical Significance
Cost to Correct Cost to Replace Cost of Capital Improvements (by Capacity) Operation Expenses per Student Weighted student formula Meet? Cost per SF 2004 w/10%
$12,826-715 $19.297,000 75 53 Yes $1.85 No
Budget and Cost: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Available capacity within building, significant in-boundary enrollment 
  2. Receive Fletcher-Johnson’s students thru consolidation 
  3. Nalle’s students swing into old Shadd
  4. Modernization
    1. PPDP Potential
  5. Nalle’s students return to modernized Nalle

RON BROWN MIDDLE SCHOOL
Planning Area - C
156,000 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
Reading
Math 		21.2 29.5  

SCHOOLS AS CENTER OF COMMUNITY 

Building Use Agreements Population Retention
# of Students in school Boundary # of Students in other schools in Cluster % of Students attendance in Boundary % of Students attendance in Cluster
0 - - - -

DEMOGRAPHICS

Walking Distance Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
0 0 See Elem. Decreasing

FACILITIES CONDITION, UTILIZATION AND SUITABILITY

Facilities Condition Index Capacity Utilization Accessibility Site Site
Acreage
Actual FCI Condition Assessment vs. 2007 enroll Projected Enrollment vs. Capacity   Amenities
0.70 17 1085 vs. 265 24% Unsatisfactory 9 4.73

Condition Assessment and Site Amenities: Range 1 to 22 (1 being the best in MS)

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA

Building Assessments Budget Cost Yes or No Utility Historical Significance
Cost to Correct Cost to Replace Cost of Capital Improvements (by Capacity) Operation Expenses per Student Weighted student formula Meet? Cost per SF 2004 w/10%
$25,223,640 $35,880,000 10 16 Yes $1.37 No

Budget and Cost: Range 1 to 22 (1 being the best in MS)

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Solid leadership with consistent academic improvement
  2. Consolidate Fletcher-Johnson’s students into Ron Brown in 2006/07
  3. Facility appears to be in good condition, minor renovation and modernization required

FLETCHER-JOHNSON INTO NALLE / RON BROWN
Planning Area - C / Cluster 1

AVAILABLE SPACE

Recommended use(s) of available space are as follows: 

  1. PPDP potential site
  2. Co-location of one or more educational programs (including charters
  3. Adult Education

SENDING / RECEIVING

  Elementary Middle
  Sending Receiving Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  167 (K-5) 814 308 460 365 835
  268 (6-8)          

MEP ALIGNMENT

  Elementary Middle
  Sending Receiving Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational adequacy Educational program assistance Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance
  9.11 Reading 7.83 Math 6.99 Reading and math

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES

  Sending Receiving
  The facility is so large that it could easily support multiple tenants and various types of tenants The remaining capacities after consolidation does not allow the school to be utilized for co-location opportunities with the exception of

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Fletcher-Johnson is not needed for Swing Space. Neither is not needed for Swing Space.

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Consolidation into a better performing elementary school 
  2. Facility: Consolidation into facilities without open concept space 
  3. Gains: 02,000 SF made available, leasing opportunities, PPDP

MERRITT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - C / Cluster 4
90,400 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
Reading
Math 		44.9 35.9  

SCHOOLS AS CENTER OF COMMUNITY 

Building Use Agreements Population Retention
# of Students in school Boundary # of Students in other schools in Cluster % of Students attendance in Boundary % of Students attendance in Cluster
0 189 45 71% 88%

DEMOGRAPHICS

Walking Distance Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
3 7 0 Decreasing

FACILITIES CONDITION, UTILIZATION AND SUITABILITY

Facilities Condition Index Capacity Utilization Accessibility Site Site
Acreage
Actual FCI Condition Assessment vs. 2007 enroll Projected Enrollment vs. Capacity   Amenities
0.47 23 352 vs. 239 68% Fair 61 3.09

Condition Assessment and Site Amenities: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA

Building Assessments Budget Cost Yes or No Utility Historical Significance
Cost to Correct Cost to Replace Cost of Capital Improvements (by Capacity) Operation Expenses per Student Weighted student formula Meet? Cost per SF 2004 w/10%
$9,767,042 $20,792,000 23 7 Yes $2.36 No

Budget and Cost: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Poor academic peformance, three schools within half a mile 
  2. Consolidate into Burrville, Houston, and Ron Brown

BURRVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - C / Cluster 4
95,000 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
- 85.1 86.2  

SCHOOLS AS CENTER OF COMMUNITY 

Building Use Agreements Population Retention
# of Students in school Boundary # of Students in other schools in Cluster % of Students attendance in Boundary % of Students attendance in Cluster
2 134 75 48% 74%

DEMOGRAPHICS

Walking Distance Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
3 6 0 Decreasing

FACILITIES CONDITION, UTILIZATION AND SUITABILITY

Facilities Condition Index Capacity Utilization Accessibility Site Site
Acreage
Actual FCI Condition Assessment vs. 2007 enroll Projected Enrollment vs. Capacity   Amenities
0.39 12 322 vs. 241 75% Unsatisfactory 79 1.61

Condition Assessment and Site Amenities: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA

Building Assessments Budget Cost Yes or No Utility Historical Significance
Cost to Correct Cost to Replace Cost of Capital Improvements (by Capacity) Operation Expenses per Student Weighted student formula Meet? Cost per SF 2004 w/10%
$8,581,587 $21,850,000 11 8 Yes $2.03 No

Budget and Cost: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. High performing academic program, significant in-boundary enrollment
  2. Consolidate one half of Merritt's students into Burrville, reconfigure attendance boundary
  3. Minor renovation and modernization required

HOUSTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - C / Cluster 4
59,900 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
Reading
Math 		48.4 35.5  

SCHOOLS AS CENTER OF COMMUNITY 

Building Use Agreements Population Retention
# of Students in school Boundary # of Students in other schools in Cluster % of Students attendance in Boundary % of Students attendance in Cluster
4 161 24 62% 72%

DEMOGRAPHICS

Walking Distance Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
2 6 4 Decreasing

FACILITIES CONDITION, UTILIZATION AND SUITABILITY

Facilities Condition Index Capacity Utilization Accessibility Site Site
Acreage
Actual FCI Condition Assessment vs. 2007 enroll Projected Enrollment vs. Capacity   Amenities
0.71 86 507 vs. 218 43% Unsatisfactory 15 4.72

Condition Assessment and Site Amenities: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA

Building Assessments Budget Cost Yes or No Utility Historical Significance
Cost to Correct Cost to Replace Cost of Capital Improvements (by Capacity) Operation Expenses per Student Weighted student formula Meet? Cost per SF 2004 w/10%
$9,730,006 $13,777,000 88 46 Yes $1.63 No

Budget and Cost: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Strong, stable leadership, supportive teachers, positive student environment 
  2. AYP Correction Action in place
  3. Swing one half of Merritt's students into Houston, reconfigure attendance boundary 
  4. Major modification of facility through phased renovation with students on-site 
  5. Available SF after renovation; opportunity for co-location of educational programs

RON BROWN MIDDLE SCHOOL
Planning Area - C
156,000 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
Reading
Math 		21.2 29.5  

SCHOOLS AS CENTER OF COMMUNITY 

Building Use Agreements Population Retention
# of Students in school Boundary # of Students in other schools in Cluster % of Students attendance in Boundary % of Students attendance in Cluster
0 - - - -

DEMOGRAPHICS

Walking Distance Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
0 0 See Elem. Decreasing

FACILITIES CONDITION, UTILIZATION AND SUITABILITY

Facilities Condition Index Capacity Utilization Accessibility Site Site
Acreage
Actual FCI Condition Assessment vs. 2007 enroll Projected Enrollment vs. Capacity   Amenities
0.70 17 1085 vs. 265 24% Unsatisfactory 9 4.73

Condition Assessment and Site Amenities: Range 1 to 22 (1 being the best in MS)

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA

Building Assessments Budget Cost Yes or No Utility Historical Significance
Cost to Correct Cost to Replace Cost of Capital Improvements (by Capacity) Operation Expenses per Student Weighted student formula Meet? Cost per SF 2004 w/10%
$25,223,640 $35,880,000 10 16 Yes $1.37 No

Budget and Cost: Range 1 to 22 (1 being the best in MS)

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Solid leadership with consistent academic improvement
  2. Consolidate Fletcher-Johnson’s students into Ron Brown in 2006/07
  3. Facility appears to be in good condition, minor renovation and modernization required

MERRITT INTO BURRVILLE / HOUSTON / RON BROWN
Planning Area - C / Cluster 4

AVAILABLE SPACE

Recommended use(s) of available space are as follows:

  1. Co-location of one or two educational programs (including charters)
  2. Parks and Recreation
  3. Wrap around services at Houston

SENDING / RECEIVING

  Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  239 352 - -

MEP ALIGNMENT

  Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational adequacy Educational program assistance
  10.72 Reading/Math - -

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES 

  Sending Receiving
  Merritt could support multiple tenants and various types of tenants. The remaining capacity after consolidation does allow the school to be utilized for co-location wrap around services.

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  The construction program to use Merritt as Swing Space. When no longer needed as a Swing Space, Merritt would be excessed. If Merritt is not used as Swing Space in this Cluster, Houston would be another option even after consolidation.

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Consolidation into a better performing school 
  2. Facility: Better utilization of existing space/rightsizing 
  3. Gains: 90,400 SF made available and leasing opportunities

SHADD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - C / Cluster 1
72,100 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
Reading
Math 		52.4 38.1  

SCHOOLS AS CENTER OF COMMUNITY 

Building Use Agreements Population Retention
# of Students in school Boundary # of Students in other schools in Cluster % of Students attendance in Boundary % of Students attendance in Cluster
1 16 55 15% 67%

DEMOGRAPHICS

Walking Distance Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
2 6 4 Decreasing

FACILITIES CONDITION, UTILIZATION AND SUITABILITY

Facilities Condition Index Capacity Utilization Accessibility Site Site
Acreage
Actual FCI Condition Assessment vs. 2007 enroll Projected Enrollment vs. Capacity   Amenities
0.39 11 507 vs. 126 25% Unsatisfactory 18 4.58

Condition Assessment and Site Amenities: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA

Building Assessments Budget Cost Yes or No Utility Historical Significance
Cost to Correct Cost to Replace Cost of Capital Improvements (by Capacity) Operation Expenses per Student Weighted student formula Meet? Cost per SF 2004 w/10%
$6,470,686 $16,583,000 14 91 No $1.74 No

Budget and Cost: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Academic performance needs improvement 
  2. Low enrollment from in-boundary population 
  3. Consolidate into Drew

DREW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - C / Cluster 2
72,800 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
- 68.5 77.8  

SCHOOLS AS CENTER OF COMMUNITY 

Building Use Agreements Population Retention
# of Students in school Boundary # of Students in other schools in Cluster % of Students attendance in Boundary % of Students attendance in Cluster
1 108 88 51% 93%

DEMOGRAPHICS

Walking Distance Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
2 7 2 Decreasing

FACILITIES CONDITION, UTILIZATION AND SUITABILITY

Facilities Condition Index Capacity Utilization Accessibility Site Site
Acreage
Actual FCI Condition Assessment vs. 2007 enroll Projected Enrollment vs. Capacity   Amenities
0.69 79 435 vs. 222 51% Unsatisfactory 60 2.31

Condition Assessment and Site Amenities: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA

Building Assessments Budget Cost Yes or No Utility Historical Significance
Cost to Correct Cost to Replace Cost of Capital Improvements (by Capacity) Operation Expenses per Student Weighted student formula Meet? Cost per SF 2004 w/10%
$6,470,686 $16,583,000 14 91 No $1.74 No

Budget and Cost: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Strong leadership, good instructional program
  2. Good Writing Center
  3. Strong AYP for multiple years (24% increase in Reading for 2004-2005 school year
  4. Receive Shadd's students through consolidation

SHADD INTO DREW
Planning Area - C / Clusters 1 and 2

AVAILABLE SPACE

Recommended use(s) of available space are as follows:

  1. Co-location of one or two educational programs
  2. PPDP Potential at Shadd
  3. Wrap around services and Reading Program at Drew
SENDING / RECEIVING 
  Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  126 502 222 435

MEP ALIGNMENT

  Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational adequacy Educational program assistance
  12.41 Reading 5.83 none

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES 

  Sending Receiving
  Shadd's layout can support co-location. The layout can be separated horizontally to accommodate two tenants and/or charters. The remaining capacity after consolidation does allow the school to be utilized for co-location wrap around services and Reading Program.

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Shadd would be excessed. The remaining capacity after consolidation does not allow the school to be utilized as a swing space. 

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Relocation of students to a high performing program/combine resources 
  2. Facility: Consolidation allows better utilization of existing space/rightsizing

WEBB ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - E / Cluster 1
103,700 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
Reading 47 32  

SCHOOLS AS CENTER OF COMMUNITY 

Building Use Agreements Population Retention
# of Students in school Boundary # of Students in other schools in Cluster % of Students attendance in Boundary % of Students attendance in Cluster
1 237 102 68% 97%

DEMOGRAPHICS

Walking Distance Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
1 5 4 Stable

FACILITIES CONDITION, UTILIZATION AND SUITABILITY

Facilities Condition Index Capacity Utilization Accessibility Site Site
Acreage
Actual FCI Condition Assessment vs. 2007 enroll Projected Enrollment vs. Capacity   Amenities
0.48 24 625 vs. 281 45% Unsatisfactory 47 3.32

Condition Assessment and Site Amenities: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA

Building Assessments Budget Cost Yes or No Utility Historical Significance
Cost to Correct Cost to Replace Cost of Capital Improvements (by Capacity) Operation Expenses per Student Weighted student formula Meet? Cost per SF 2004 w/10%
$11,363,808 $23,851,000 25 54 Yes $1.86 No

Budget and Cost: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Consolidate Wheatley into Webb during school modernization of Wheatley 
  2. Move Wheatley/Webb into Wheatley upon completion of modernization 
  3. In future, Webb made available
  4. Would become leasing opportunity that could support multiple tenants

WHEATLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - E / Cluster 1
87,200 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
- 52.2 63  

SCHOOLS AS CENTER OF COMMUNITY 

Building Use Agreements Population Retention
# of Students in school Boundary # of Students in other schools in Cluster % of Students attendance in Boundary % of Students attendance in Cluster
0 88 14 77% 90%

DEMOGRAPHICS

Walking Distance Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
2 8 4 Stable

FACILITIES CONDITION, UTILIZATION AND SUITABILITY

Facilities Condition Index Capacity Utilization Accessibility Site Site
Acreage
Actual FCI Condition Assessment vs. 2007 enroll Projected Enrollment vs. Capacity   Amenities
- - 530 vs. 153 20% Unsatisfactory - -

Condition Assessment and Site Amenities: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA

Building Assessments Budget Cost Yes or No Utility Historical Significance
Cost to Correct Cost to Replace Cost of Capital Improvements (by Capacity) Operation Expenses per Student Weighted student formula Meet? Cost per SF 2004 w/10%
- - - 99 No $0.05 -

Budget and Cost: Range 1 to 104 (1 being the best in ES)

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Consolidate Wheatley students (from Shadd) into Webb 
  2. Currently being modernized and rightsized 
  3. Upon completion, return Wheatley/Webb to Wheatley

WHEATLEY INTO WEBB
Planning Area - E / Cluster 1

AVAILABLE SPACE

Recommended use(s) of available space are as follows: 

  1. Reading program
SENDING / RECEIVING 
  Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  153 530 281 625

MEP ALIGNMENT

  Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational adequacy Educational program assistance
  8.5 None 11.2 None

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES 

  Sending Receiving
  N/A The remaining capacity after consolidation does allow the school to be utilized for co-location except educational programs.

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Wheatley is not planned to be used as swing space.