On May 18th, the 21ST Century School Fund held a …



The 21ST Century School Fund convened a community forum on DCPS school closings and consolidations at the Sumner School Museum on May 18, 2004. The forum provided information on current building utilizations and current closing/consolidation policies. Small discussion groups covered master planning problems, proposed policy revisions, capital budget implications and various practical problems of co-location and consolidation.

The meeting was attended by more than 60 people, including parents, DCPS administrators, DCPS facilities staff, representatives from parent/school organizations and education non-profits, principals, teachers, charter school representatives, DC planning office staff, and representatives from the Board of Education.

DC’s Sad Legacy of Decisions

Interest in school closings and consolidations is high as people realize that DCPS is losing population and understand that flourishing schools are vital to the long term health of the entire city and are part of the foundation for healthy neighborhoods.

In the past, school closings have created political altercations that have been detrimental to public education in the District. Wrenching rounds of closings and consolidations occurred in 1993, 1995 and 1997 – and the issue keeps coming back.

Schools in poor condition have been closed and consolidated into other schools in poor condition, making for larger, crowded schools in worse condition, and a loss of neighborhood-based schools. Consolidated schools have been unprepared for new students; boundaries were not changed appropriately (although this has recently been brought up to date). Good schools have been lost, among them the Montessori school at Woodridge and Richardson Elementary. Many historically significant schools that served as community flagships have also been closed, i.e. McKinley, Sumner, Franklin, and Carter G. Woodson. As a result, communities have been left underserved. For example, the loss of Taft Jr. High and Rabaut Middle School along with the conversion of Paul Jr. High to a charter has left Ward 4 with no regular public mid-level school.

Little Money Saved

So far, it cannot be demonstrated that much money has been saved. With school budgets based on Weighted Student Funding, the operating budget of a consolidated school remains substantially the same as two smaller schools, even as utilities and maintenance costs are reduced. Furthermore, costs to properly mothball a closed school are not figured in: security, exterior maintenance, landscaping, and the costs of community blight are not included. Income from the sale of schools has not been realized as expected. Decisions about the sale of irretrievable public property have been shortsighted. An egregious example of which is Fillmore, a historic building on a block through in Georgetown sold by the Control Board to a non-profit organization that does not pay taxes. In the past, any money DC saved through closing and consolidating schools has, to considerable extent, been a function of driving students out of the system and often, out of the city.

Falling DCPS Enrollments/ Rising Charter School Numbers

While DCPS school enrollment has fallen over the past decade, the number of charter school enrollees has risen accordingly so that the total number of public school students has held relatively steady. However, as neighborhoods have changed and school-age populations have shifted, a few DCPS schools are overcrowded while many others are underutilized. Meanwhile, charter schools have continued to proliferate and they have consistently had difficulty finding appropriate space.

Facilities Master Plan

DCPS buildings are aging and generally lack the amenities required for modern education: media centers, labs, specialty offices, cafeterias, athletic facilities - - many are without air conditioning, functioning windows, sound roofs, reliable plumbing and the capacity for modern technology. An ambitious Facilities Master Plan was instituted with extensive community input in 1999. It outlined the rebuilding or renovation of all schools over a 20 year period, adding new construction sites each year. Implementation of the plan is simultaneously over budget and stalled due to lack of funding and other problems.

Ambitious Plan Stalled

Although preliminary design work has been done for about 20 schools, only seven new or renovated schools have been opened since construction started in 2000. Furthermore, the 20 large open plan schools built in the 1970s are now understood to be very challenging for teaching and learning. While funds have been tied up in expensive renovations for a few schools, the majority are deteriorating ever more rapidly through age and inattention. Throughout the city there is confusion about how to right-size school renovations while equitably distributing funds for facilities.

Are Closings Really Necessary?

Some of the pressures for closing and consolidating schools include the cost of utilities, maintenance, repair and custodial costs. While smaller schools probably are more cost effective per graduate than is generally acknowledged, small schools that are supported by adequate facilities and full programs are not inexpensive, whether they are charter schools or regular public schools. Another major factor is the need for sufficient enrollment to support a full complement of educational offerings including art, music, physical education, media center, assembly rooms and at the secondary level, laboratories, theaters, cafeterias, specialized workshops, broadcast studios, etc., as well as a broad range of athletic facilities. Other pressures include the charter schools’ need for space and real estate desires of private schools and developers.

Clearly we need to address issues associated with:

• Inefficient utilization of space

• Need for more efficient use of operating and maintenance dollars

• Possibilities for income in leasing space to charter schools and others

• Opportunities possible in improving educational programs with sensible consolidations

• Responsibilities to accommodate charter school populations

Group I: Discussion of Master Planning: How Do Educational Programs Affect Facilities Planning?

Assumptions to be included in discussion:

1. Are uniform grade configurations better? Is the current standard K-5, 6-8, 9-12, optimal? (What about DCPS’s common Pre-K-6, 7-9, 10-12 structure?) Is there a legitimate reason, a real programmatic rationale for uniformity?

2. How important to quality education is it for a program to be able to respond to different student needs and styles of learning?

3. Are there universal standards to assess educational quality regardless of program type?

4. What basic human resources are needed for a successful school? What effect do these basic staffing needs have on the success of a program? Should these basic human resources be uniform for all schools?

5. How important is it to consider feeder patterns in planning for school populations? Feeder patterns can be considered within DCPS and between DCPS, charter schools and private and parochial schools. (DCPS’s Oyster elementary is an example of a neighborhood magnet with a bilingual focus that has worked for years to establish a suitable feeder program for its 6th graders.)

6. Should we establish rating systems for schools as they meet standards - - i.e. 1 to 5 stars as for hotels and restaurants?

7. Which is more important to successful education: small class size or small schools?

General discussion centered on first, the need for system-wide or state-wide standards for curricular offerings and the distribution of individual programs across the entire system. Second, the group discussed standards for quality at the building level and how to review and align existing standards. Third was discussion of the need for accurate and comprehensive data in order to make rational decisions about consolidations and closings. The group also discussed feeder patterns between schools.

Group II: Discussion of Co-location Scenarios

The pros and cons of consolidating two public schools (regular or charter) were considered with success expected to be dependent on the particulars of the building, the neighborhood and the ability of the teachers and administrators to work out mutual accommodations.

Problems in Scheduling Space Experience with co-located schools in New York pointed to problems with scheduling shared common space such as gymnasiums and cafeterias. It was noted that a building’s capacity for several small schools is very different than the capacity for one large school because of the need to separate students throughout the building. Problems arose when several different school cultures clashed with no process for bridging the differences.

Grade-Configurations: Same or Different? Charter school experience here in DC suggests that it might be best to partner schools that serve different age-level students. This not only would increase the autonomy of the two schools and cut competition but would also offer possibilities for tutoring. Patterson’s swing space at PR Harris was cited as an example where two elementary schools are co-locating temporarily, making for a 700 student Pre-K-8 school; the two student bodies are completely separate and enter through different doors. Another example is Shadd, which had been losing students as nearby public housing shut down, but now provides swing space for Wheatly which is going into construction next year. Shadd anticipates continuing to serve as a swing space school in the future. Several DCPS Montessori schools (Merritt, or Nalle, for example) co-exist very well with regular classes at the same age level.

Incentives for Co-Locating The new law that returns rent money for co-location with charters directly back to the host school could boost the number of co-locations. If the rewards to the hosting school are sufficient to pay for physical education teachers, or art teachers, for example - - who might be shared between the public and charter schools - - the outcome for the host school could be good. However, there is also a danger that co-location will be seen as an avenue for funding that rightly should come from the central administration, leaving small schools that can’t co-locate unable to provide a well-rounded program for their students

Task Force for Co-Locations The Office of Facilities has been tasked by the DC Council with coordinating and facilitating the co-location of charter schools and public schools as well as co-locating either type of school with non-profits or other city services. A school task force has been set up to develop this process. They are working out parameters to determine the number of classrooms available at a school that qualify it to be considered a candidate for co-location. Size cut-offs for co-located schools should be considered as well.

Decision Making and Process Who makes the decisions on co-locations was seen as key to creating successful schools. Top down determinations were not expected to be welcome or smoothly instituted. Set procedures and standards are needed, possibly with a policy that is activated whenever a school drops below a certain number of students, placing a school in a sort of probationary status for a few years. It was universally agreed that any process has to be clear, explicitly followed, totally across-the-board and absolutely transparent.

Group III: Discussion of Policies and Processes Concerning School Closing and Consolidation

Stability, not Facility Driven The group agreed that the decision to close a school should not be driven by the facilities, but by the need for a school to serve a certain neighborhood or population. Just because a school is in poor physical shape is not a reason to close it. Neighborhood stability and stability for individual students are key elements that should be recognized.

Clear Criteria, Good Data, Transparent Process The group discussed items that should be considered before a school could be closed, emphasizing the need for absolutely clear criteria. First listed was the need for impeccable data (i.e. how many students plan to return, how many students can be anticipated from feeder schools, housing statistics, anticipated development, birth rates etc.). Demographic projections were seen as especially important. Any process for applying criteria should be completely transparent and open to scrutiny.

Incentives and Planning to Benefit All Public School Students School buildings ought to be understood as facilities that benefit and accommodate all public school students, both regular public school students and charter school students. There should be real incentives for regular public schools that co-locate with charter schools. Co-location will require painstaking and careful planning to determine the best placement for programs, students and teachers.

Include the Community from the Beginning Community buy-in is critical and numerous community dialogues should be planned at every stage of the process. The neighborhood should be brought into the process at least one year before any expected closure.

Group IV: Discussion of Capital Budgeting

The capital budget has to be stabilized and rationalized; capital planning cannot be done on a year-to-year budget because the larger projects require five years and more from planning through construction and the budget to complete the whole project has to be accurately tracked over years. A truly stable funding stream has to be identified and it has to be consistently available over the long term. Identifying an annual percentage is not feasible because fluctuations will result in construction sites sitting idle while children are at school off-site.

DCPS must engage in a conversation with the entire city so that everyone can buy into the larger capital program for all of our public buildings - - libraries, police stations, municipal office buildings, recreation centers and schools. Any school closings have to be done with a commitment from the city to fund other capital projects.

Planning for our buildings has to be transparent. We never again want to see something like the 1993 summit between chair of the council, the mayor and the president of the school board where decisions on school closings were done in secret.

DCPS deserves credit for being ahead of the rest of the city agencies because the schools have a master plan. However, that plan has to be reviewed annually to make it more effective and more efficient. It is clear that the capital improvement budget cannot begin to sustain the original schedule for the Master Facilities Plan. Downsizing projects is necessary and a community process has to be instituted quickly to reduce the scope of the Tier1 and Tier 2 projects.

DCPS has to rationalize its allocation of space. We have to deliberately right-size our buildings:

- DCPS is expanding space in its new construction while it is losing population: McKinley, Kelly Miller, Barnard, plans for HD Cooke - - all increase student slots in areas of declining school population.

- It may be time to include a variety of structural options at the next review of the Facilities Master Plan so that more K-8 configurations are considered.

- Co-locating schools with clinics, offices, and charter schools is one way to make efficient use of the school space.

- Eliminating whole wings of buildings added in the 1970’s might also help right-size buildings.

- McKinley could house Banneker, School Without Walls, swing space for schools in construction, in addition to the Technology School.

- Walker-Jones should be master planned with RH Terrell; perhaps moved into a renovated RH Terrell as a K-8 school.

Maintenance is hard to fund out of the operating budget. Schools would be better served if maintenance were located and controlled through the Office of Facilities.

Special education programs must be brought back into schools along with the capital outlay required to retrofit space to house programs. This would result in huge savings in transportation and tuition and better education for the students.

Wrap Up and Next Steps

DCPS’s optimistic Capital Improvement Program has been overtaken by events and planning and construction cannot move fast enough to catch up with our need for functional schools. As the system bleeds students, we are left to plan for closings and consolidations. Fundamentally, the responsibility for directing this process rests with the Superintendent and the Board of Education, rather than the Office of Facilities Management, whose role is to provide information and expertise. The discussion groups have outlined some of the crucial issues but more discussion is necessary. The conversation has just begun.

Materials Provided

• “Utilization” Chart by School, Including Enrollment, Square Footage, Density Factor, etc., (see Note 1 below).

• FY 2003 Oct Equalized Weighted Student Formula Allocation This chart shows school budgets by individual schools, sorted in several different ways (see Note 2, below).

• Print Out of DC Municipal Regulations Covering Closing Public School Buildings (Title 5, Chapter 36, Sections 3600-3615).

• Print Out of DC Municipal Regulations Covering School Building and Grounds (Title 5, Chapter 35, Sections 3500-3514)

• List of Laws Relating to DCPS’s Obligation to Cooperate With Public Charter Schools on Facilities (FOCUS)

• Summary of DCPS School Closing Policy (21st Century School Fund)

• Smart Growth and School Consolidations: Think About It (21st Century School Fund)

• Compilation of School Closing Regulations from Iowa, Maryland, Detroit, Virginia Beach

• Rural Policy Matters Vol. 6. No. 4, April 2004 “Small Works” the Series Summary.

Please contact the 21st Century School Fund (202-745-3745 or info@) for copies of any of these materials.

Note 1: Figuring Capacity

With large numbers of old buildings that do not have the media centers, cafeterias, art rooms, science rooms, etc., expected in a modern program, the school capacity figures are often skewed because, former classrooms that serve as school libraries or school offices are frequently counted as classroom space, while the total lack of assembly space or cafeteria space is not considered.

Consequently, taking Stoddert elementary as an example, with 213 students in classroom space and a bare 82 square feet per student, (140 sq. ft. per student is standard at this level) the program capacity is listed at 234 students, which would add 21 students to an already overcrowded situation, leaving the school at 74 square feet per student - - half the standard. Similarly, open plan schools with no classroom walls are not functional unless they are under-utilized and as a consequence, they have been assigned less capacity in an effort to reflect the functional reality of teaching in these schools.

Note 2: Expense of Small Schools

In the 2003-2004 school year DCPS had 36 schools with less than 300 students. Small schools are relatively expensive because certain standard support staff is required for each building, even though the small size of the population served makes each salary less efficient. However, the increased costs may well be off set by the educational advantages of small schools in cost per graduate, rather than cost per student. It is assumed that small schools can better support students so that they are more successful and stay in school to graduate and go on to higher education - - they are also considered safer, a major consideration in an urban area.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download