![]()
Back to DC Public Schools main page
|
Major Areas State Education
Agency Calendars Columns Directories Organizations |
District of Columbia Public Schools
SUPERINTENDENT’S RECOMMENDATIONOVERVIEWThe 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:
Alignment of ResourcesThe 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.
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 CONSOLIDATIONFLETCHER-JOHNSON EDUCATIONAL CENTER
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
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 |
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)
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)
AVAILABLE SPACE
Recommended use(s) of available space are as follows:
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
AVAILABLE SPACE
Recommended use(s) of available space are as follows:
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
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)
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)
AVAILABLE SPACE
Recommended use(s) of available space are as follows:
| 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
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)
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)
AVAILABLE SPACE
Recommended use(s) of available space are as follows:
| 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. |