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.  The remaining capacity after consolidation does not allow the school to be utilized as a swing space. 

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Students are relocated closer to their neighborhood
  2. Facility: Better utilization of existing space/rightsizing
  3. Gains: Making Webb available in the future after Wheatley is modernized

M. C. TERRELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - A / Cluster 3
112,000 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
- 36.4 45.5  

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
3 70 50 36% 61%

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 9 1 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
0.59 50 366 vs. 237 65% Unsatisfactory 23 4.08

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%
$15,249,920 $25,760,000 44 103 No $1.89 No

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

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Building underutilized and open plan configuration
  2. AYP: Needs Improvement in Reading and Math
  3. Consolidate in McGogney
  4. M. C. Terrell made available
  5. The entire building would be a leasing opportunity that could support multiple tenants

MCGOGNEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - A / Cluster 3
67,600 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE
Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
Reading 51.5 33.8  

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
0 53 27 23% 34%

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
5 9 1 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
0.41 17 504 vs. 192 38% Unsatisfactory 20 4.19

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%
$6,424,433 $15,548,000 20 48 Yes $0.94 No

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

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Underutilized facility in good condition
  2. Receive M. C. Terrell's students through consolidation
  3. In future, McGogney/M.C. Terrell students swing into Old Simon 
  4. Modernized and right sized
    1. Separate cafeteria or gym area is needed per MEP
  5. McGogney/M.C. Terrell students return to modernized McGogney
  6. Extra SF (wing or entire floor) would be available and a co-location opportunity for PK-Program

M. C. TERRELL INTO MCGOGNEY
Planning Area - A / Cluster 3

AVAILABLE SPACE

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

  1. Co-location of one or two educational programs (including charters)
  2. City agency use
  3. Early Childhood
SENDING / RECEIVING 
Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  237 366 192 504

MEP ALIGNMENT

  Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational adequacy Educational program assistance
  8.98 Reading/Math 11.3 Reading

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES 

  Sending Receiving
  M.C. Terrell layout can support multiple tenants, the 3rd story open concept could support education programs and/or administration. The additional building could support Early  The remaining capacity after consolidation does not allow the school to be utilized utilized for co-location opportunities with the exception of 

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  M.C. Terrell is not needed for Swing Space.  The remaining capacity after consolidation does not allow the school to be utilized as a swing space. 

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Consolidation into a better performing school/purging of open concept 
  2. Facility: Consolidation into a better facility/better utilization of existing space and rightsizing 
  3. Gains: 112,000 SF made available in leasing opportunities

VAN NESS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - D / Cluster 1
49,400 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE
Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
- - - -

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 0 3 0% 5%

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 6 3 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
0.53 35 362 vs. 90 25% Unsatisfactory 62 2.13

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%
$6,049,696 $11,362,000 35 106 No $2.13 No

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

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Consolidate Special Needs into Prospect, strengthening existing area Special Education Center 
  2. Van Ness is excessed
  3. The entire building would be a leasing opportunity or PPDP

VAN NESS INTO PROSPECT
Planning Area - D / Cluster 1

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 
Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  90 360 82 600

MEP ALIGNMENT

  Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational adequacy Educational program assistance
  7.06 N/A N/A N/A

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES 

  Sending Receiving
  Van Ness'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 opportunities. 

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Van Ness will be made available. Prospect is not needed for Swing Space.

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Relocation program that could share resources 
  2. Facility: Better utilization of existing space 
  3. Gains: 49,400 SF made available in leasing opportunities

WALKER-JONES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - D / Cluster 4
104,200 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
Reading
Math 		37.3 19 -

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
4 294 16 89% 94%

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 9 Increasing

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
0.40 15 509 vs. 275 54% Unsatisfactory 80 1.66

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%
$9,604,374 $23,966,000 15 22 Yes $1.94 No

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

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Co-locate Walker-Jones into Terrell JHS
  2. Excess Walker-Jones
  3. PPDP opportunity with city center concept. New school building to be developed with Parks / Library city partnerships
  4. Establish Walker-Jones/Terrell PreK-8 Demonstration School

R. H. TERRELL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Planning Area - D
143,700 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
Reading
Math 		31.3 37.5 -

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
1 - - - -

DEMOGRAPHICS

Adjacent Middle School Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
0 2 See Elem. Increasing

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
0.81 8 600 vs. 229 38% Unsatisfactory 15 2.31

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%
$20,035,516 $33,051,000 18 19 Yes $1.61 No

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

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Stable leadership for last several years
  2. Numerous community partnerships, including City Vision/Building Museum and CRESPAR 
  3. Consolidate Walker-Jones into R. H. Terrell
  4. PPDP opportunity with city center concept. New school building to be developed with Parks / Library city partnerships
  5. Establish Walker-Jones/Terrell PreK-8 Demonstration School
  6. Old R. H. Terrell made available

WALKER-JONES INTO R.H. TERRELL
Planning Area - D / Cluster 4

AVAILABLE SPACE

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

  1. PPDP Development
  2. Reading and Math Programs at Terrell
SENDING / RECEIVING 
Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  275 509 229 600

MEP ALIGNMENT

  Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational adequacy Educational program assistance
  10.41 Math/Reading 5.71 none

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES 

  Sending Receiving
  This would be only a temporary co-location. It is anticipated that the will be a PPDP that will result in a new Walker-Jones/Terrell PreK-8 building. The remaining capacity after consolidation does not allow the school to be utilized for co-location opportunities.

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Walker-Jones is not need for Swing Space. The remaining capacity after consolidation does not allow the school to be utilized as a swing space. 

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Consolidation into a better performance school/purging of open concept 
  2. Facility: Consolidation into a similar condition facility/better utilization of existing space 
  3. Gains: 104,200 made available SF in leasing opportunities

BUNKER HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - E / Cluster 3
69,400 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
- 67.7 60.3  

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
4 125 81 48% 80%

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 3 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
0.63 59 507 vs. 204 40% Fair 21 4.39

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%
$10,040,098 $15,962,000 64 37 Yes $1.90 No

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

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Available SF (30,000) to be used as co-location opportunity with Charter program 
  2. Consolidate Brookland into Bunker Hill
  3. Phased modernization per floor and/or building area

BUNKER HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - E / Cluster 3

AVAILABLE SPACE

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

  1. Charter School for 30,000 SF (L.A.M.B. PCS)
SENDING / RECEIVING 
Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  204 507 N/A N/A

MEP ALIGNMENT

  Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational adequacy Educational program assistance
  10.37 none N/A N/A

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES

  Sending Receiving
  Bunker Hill's layout can support co-location. N/A

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Bunker Hill is not needed for Swing Space. N/A

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Not applicable
  2. Facility: Co-location facilitates better utilization of existing space and rightsizing 
  3. Gains: 30,000 SF made available

ELIOTT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Planning Area - D
155,100 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
Reading
Math 		46 37.8  

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 - - - -

DEMOGRAPHICS

Adjacent Middle School Housing Trends - 10 years
No. of Schools within 1/2 mile No. of Schools within 1 mile
No. of Housing Developments Population Trend
0 1 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
0.71 18 850 vs. 361 42% Unsatisfactory 10 4.82

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%
$25,192,272 $35,673,000 16 6 Yes $1.57 Yes

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

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Available SF (30,000) to be used as co-location opportunity with Charter program 
  2. Phased modernization per floor and/or building area

ELIOTT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Planning Area - D

AVAILABLE SPACE

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

  1. Charter School for 30,000 SF (Two Rivers PCS)
  2. Community Performing Arts (Auditorium)
  3. Wrap around services and Math/Reading Programs
SENDING / RECEIVING 
Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  361 850 N/A N/A

MEP ALIGNMENT

  Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational adequacy Educational program assistance
  7.79 Reading/Math N/A N/A

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES

  Sending Receiving
  Elliott's capacity (excluding available 30,000 SF) will allow for additional co-location opportunities. N/A

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Elliott is not needed for Swing Space. N/A

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Not applicable
  2. Facility: Co-location facilitates better utilization of existing space and rightsizing 
  3. Gains: 30,000 SF made available in leasing opportunity

EVANS (SWING SCHOOL)
Planning Area - C
125, 800 SF

AVAILABLE SPACE

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

  1. Co-location of one or more educational programs (60,000 SF to Maya Angelou Charter) 
  2. Adult education
  3. Parks and Recreation
SENDING / RECEIVING 
Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  Swing 711 N/A N/A

Luke Moore Academy

MEP ALIGNMENT

  Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational adequacy Educational program assistance
  No Asssmt. N/A N/A N/A

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES 

  Sending Receiving
  A school with this size could support multiple tenants and various types of tenants. Note: the actual floor was not review due to availability. N/A

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Evans is not needed for Swing Space. N/A

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Not applicable
  2. Facility: Currently a Swing Space
  3. Gains: Minimum of 60,000 SF made available in leasing opportunities

HARRISON
Planning Area - F
48,900 SF

AVAILABLE SPACE

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

  1. Charter School for entire building 48,900 SF
SENDING / RECEIVING 
Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  N/A N/A N/A N/A

MEP ALIGNMENT

  Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational adequacy Educational program assistance
  N/A N/A N/A N/A

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES

  Sending Receiving
  Size of Harrison allows for the entire building to be available. N/A

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Harrison is not needed for Swing Space. N/A

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Not applicable
  2. Facility: Not Applicable
  3. Gains: 48,900 SF made available in leasing opportunity

OLD MINER
Planning Area - D

AVAILABLE SPACE

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

  1. M.P.D. Charter 17,000 SF
SENDING / RECEIVING 
Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  N/A N/A N/A N/A

Luke Moore Academy

MEP ALIGNMENT

  Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational adequacy Educational program assistance
  N/A N/A N/A N/A

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES

  Sending Receiving
  Original building is ideal to support a small tenant/organization. N/A

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Old Miner is not needed for Swing Space. N/A

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Not applicable
  2. Facility: Administrative Use
  3. Gains: Minimum of 17,000 SF made available and other leasing opportunities

SHARPE HEALTH ANNEX
Planning Area - H
17,413 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
N/A N/A N/A N/A

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 N/A N/A N/A N/A

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
4 9 N/A N/A

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
0.65 9 N/A N/A Fair 1 4.82

Condition Assessment and Site Amenities: Range 1 to 10 (1 being the best of SE/SS)

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%
$2,622,867 $4,004,990 7 N/A N/A N/A No

Budget and Cost: Range 1 to 10 (1 being the best SE/SS)

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Available SF (17,413) to be used as co-location opportunity for Charter program 33

SHARPE HEALTH ANNEX
Planning Area - H
AVAILABLE SPACE

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

  1. Charter School for 17,413 SF (Academy Public Charter School)
SENDING / RECEIVING 
Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  N/A N/A N/A N/A

MEP ALIGNMENT

Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance
  N/A N/A N/A N/A

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES

  Sending Receiving
  Size of Sharpe Annex allows for the entire building to be excessed. N/A

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Sharpe Annex is not needed for Swing Space. N/A

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Not applicable
  2. Facility: Not Applicable
  3. Gains: 17,413 SF made available in leasing opportunity

ADAMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - F / Cluster 3
59,400 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE
Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
- 58.9 53.6  

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
0 41 82 25% 75%

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 Increasing

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
0.72 87 304 vs. 154 51% Unsatisfactory 75 1.51

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%
$9,781,992 $13,662,000 79 104 No $1.64 Yes

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

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Underutilized facility, additional capacity for 150 students
  2. Consolidate with Oyster Elementary to expand capacity for Bi-Lingual Education Programs 
  3. Opportunity for potential wrap around services
  4. 15,000 SF made available

OYSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - G / Cluster 2
46,000 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
- 85.4 82.3  

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
6 143 25 35% 40%

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 4 2 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
0.21 7 306 vs. 438 133% Good 92 1.67

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%
$2,328,663 $11,036,320 8 98 No New No

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

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Facility overutilized, requires space for 150 additional students 
  2. Consolidate with Adams Elementary

ADAMS AND OYSTER 
Planning Area - F / Cluster 3

AVAILABLE SPACE

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

  1. Co-location at Adams for an educational program (including charters) for excess of 15,000 SF
SENDING / RECEIVING 
Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  154 304 408 306

MEP ALIGNMENT

Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance
  6.81 none 14.92 none

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES 

  Sending Receiving
  Adams layout can support co-location. The layout can be separated horizontally to accommodate a tenant and/or charter. The remaining capacity after consolidation does not allow the school to be utilized for co-location opportunities.

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Adams is not needed for Swing Space. The capacity after consolidation does not allow the school to be utilized as a swing space.

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Share resources between a performing school and a good performing 
  2. Facility: Creating a cluster allows for better utilization of existing space/rightsizing 
  3. Gains: 15,000 SF made available in leasing opportunities

RUDOLPH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - H / Cluster 2
73,600 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
- 65 56  

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
3 190 98 61% 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
1 4 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
0.65 67 546 vs. 240 44% Unsatisfactory 16 4.87

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%
$12,685,742 $19,412,000 91 79 Yes $1.58 Yes

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

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Underutilized facility with additional capacity of 300 students 
  2. Consolidate into 2/3rd of existing building 
  3. Available SF (24,300) for co-location opportunity

RUDOLPH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - H / Cluster 2

AVAILABLE SPACE

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

  1. Co-location for one educational 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
  240 547 N/A N/A

MEP ALIGNMENT

Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance
  8.26 none N/A N/A

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES 

  Sending Receiving
  Rudolph layout can support co-location. The layout can be separated horizontally or vertically to accommodate additional tenants and/or charter. N/A

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Rudolph is not needed for Swing Space. Neither is not needed for Swing Space.

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: Improve layout/classroom organization/zones 
  2. Facility: Better utilization and right sizing 
  3. Gains: Approximately 24,300 SF made available

MONTGOMERY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - F / Cluster 1
73,000 SF

EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Program Assistance Required Percent Proficient
Math % out of 100 Reading % out of 100 Combine
Reading 59 44.3  

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 89 27 45% 59%

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 8 8 Increasing

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
0.74 91 451 vs. 202 44% Unsatisfactory 76 1.57

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%
$12,480,173 $16,951,000 89 52 Yes N/A No

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

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. Systemic renovation on site
  2. Excess Wing for co-location (35,000 SF)
  3. Potential PPDP opportunity with KIPP

MONTGOMERY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Planning Area - F / Cluster 1

AVAILABLE SPACE

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

  1. Co-location of one educational program (including charters)
SENDING / RECEIVING 
Sending Receiving
  # of Students in sending school # of Students designed for school # of Students in receiving school # of Students designed for school
  202 451 N/A N/A

MEP ALIGNMENT

Sending Receiving
  Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance Educational Adequacy Educational program assistance
  6.27 none N/A N/A

CO LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES 

  Sending Receiving
  Montgomery layout can support co-location. The layout can be separated horizontally or vertically to accommodate additional tenant and/or charter. N/A

SWING SPACE

  Sending Receiving
  Montgomery is not needed for Swing Space. N/A

BENEFITS

  1. Educational: The opportunity to eliminate the open concept (addition) thru co-location 
  2. Facility: Better utilization and right sizing
  3. Gains: Approx. 35,000 SF made available

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

School Name

 Planning Area Planning Cluster Building
SF 		Available SF Student Population Relocated
Population
Educational Consolidation              
  Sending Receiving            
  Fletcher - Johnson EC   C 1 302,000 302,000 435 435
    Nalle ES C 1 83,900 0 308 0
    Ron Brown MS C 1 156,000 0 265 0
      C 4 90,400 90,400 239 239
    Burville ES C 4 95,000 0 241 0
    Houston ES C 4 59,900 0 218 0
    Ron Brown MS C 1 156,000 0 265 0
                 
  C 1 72,100 72,100 126 127
  Drew ES C 2 72,800 0 222 0
Shadd ES Wheatley (in Shadd ES) E 1 87,200 0 153 153
Webb E 1 103,700 0 281 0
M.C. Terrell ES A 3 112,000 112,000 237 237
McGogney ES A 3 67,700 0 192 0
Van Ness ES D 1 49,400 49,400 90 90
Prospect EC D 1 59,200 0 0
Walker - Jones ES   D 4 104,200 104,200 275 275
R.H. Terrell MS D na 143,700 0 229 0
  Program Co-Location              
 

Bunker Hill ES

  E 3 69,000 30,000 204 0
 

Eliott MS

  D na 155,100 30,000 361 0
 

Evans ES

  C na 125,800 60,000 na 0

 

Harrison ES

  F na 48,900 48,900 na 0
 

Old Miner ES

  D na 17,000 17,000 na 0
  Sharpe Health Annex   H na 17,413 17,413 na 0
       
  Operational Efficiency / Right Sizing            
  Adams ES   F 3 59,400 15,000 154 0
  JF Oyster ES   G 2 46,000 0 438 132
                 
 

Rudolph ES

   H 2 73,600 24,300 240 0
                 
 

Montgomery ES

   F 1 73,600 35,000 202 0
                 
Total         1,007,713   1,688
 

NEXT STEPS

Careful review of these recommendations will reveal various educational and operational gains that support the Master Education Plan and create sustainable learning environments that offer the full range of academic and community oriented programs and services with schools positioned to become neighborhood hubs and centers of the community.

The initial elements of the Next Steps will involve:

  • Community Engagement - Public Hearings, Parent Call-Center, Community Outreach, Web-based postings and Feed-back
  • Transparent Planning and Implementation - Task Force work sessions, Teacher and Union Representative meetings, Summer Roll-out planning

In an attempt to identify potential partners, and to facilitate/expedite leasing agreements for the disposition of the identified available space (immediately upon adoption of these recommendations), we request the approval to initiating Step One of the co-location process. This step will involve the issuance of a Notification of Available Space and Acceptance of Letters of Interest, outlining the Board of Education approved potential site list on the web at www.k12.dc.us, and in the DC Register. Letters of Interest submitted by interested charter schools will be evaluated and presented to the Board of Education for acceptance.

ack to top of page


Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcpswatch.com
Web site copyright ©1997-2009, DCWatch