Page
Number
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
xii
Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1
Chapter 1 - Planning Environment …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
7
Chapter 2 – Enrollment, Capacity, and Space Available .…………………………………………………………………………………………………
12
Chapter 3 – Program Impacts on Facilities ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
27
Chapter 4 – Charter School …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
38
Chapter 5 – Capital Funding and Implementation ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
46
Chapter 6 – Recommendations by Planning Area …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
List of Active Schools…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Area A - Ballou, Birney, Douglass, Draper, Ferebee-Hope, Green, P.R. Harris, Hart, Hendley, Johnson, M.L. King, Leckie, Malcolm X, McGogney, Moten,
Patterson, Savoy, Simon, M.C. Terrell, Turner and Wilkinson ……………………………………………………………………………………
Area B - Anacostia, Beers, Davis, Garfield, Ketcham, Kimball, Kramer, Orr, Randle Highlands, Sousa, Stanton and Winston ……………………………………
Area C - Aiton, Benning, Ron Brown, Burrville, Drew, Evans, Fletcher/Johnson, C.W. Harris, Houston, Kenilworth, Merritt, Nalle, Plummer, River Terrace,
Shadd, Smothers, Thomas and H.D. Woodson ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Area D - Amidon, Bowen, Brent, Eastern, Eliot, Gibbs, Hine, Jefferson, Ludlow-Taylor, Maury, Miner, Payne, Peabody, School Without Walls, Stuart-Hobson,
R.H. Terrell, Tyler, Van Ness, Walker-Jones, Watkins and J.O. Wilson ……………………………………………………………………………
Area E - Backus, Brookland, Browne, Bunker Hill, Burroughs, J.F. Cook, Dunbar, Emery, Hamilton, Langdon, Mamie D. Lee, Marshall, Luke Moore, Noyes,
Phelps, Shaed, Slowe, Spingarn, Taft, M.M. Washington, Webb, Wheatley and Young ………………………………………………………………
Area F - Adams, Bancroft, Banneker, Bell, Bruce-Monroe, Cardozo, Cleveland, H.D. Cooke, Francis, Gage-Eckington, Garnet-Patterson, Garrison, Lincoln, Meyer,
Montgomery, Park View, Marie Reed, Ross, Seaton, Shaw, Stevens, Thompson and Tubman …………………………………………………………
Area G - Deal, Eaton, Ellington, Hardy, Hearst, Hyde, Janney, Key, Lafayette, Mann, Murch, Oyster, Sharpe Health, Stoddert and W. Wilson ……………………
Area H - Barnard, Brightwood, Clark, Coolidge, LaSalle, MacFarland, Powell, Raymond, Roosevelt, Rudolph, Shepherd, Takoma, Truesdell, West and Whittier………
56
57
102
110
118
Appendix ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Glossary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
School Boundary Maps ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Adams Elementary……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………
126
127
132
133
63
71
78
86
94
Page
Number
School Boundary Maps (continued)
Aiton Elementary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Amidon Elementary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Anacostia Senior High …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Backus Middle …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
134
135
136
137
Ballou Senior High………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Bancroft Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Barnard Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Beers Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Benning Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Birney Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………
Bowen Elementary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Brent Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Brightwood Elementary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Brookland Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Brown, Ronald Middle …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Browne Junior High ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Bruce-Monroe Elementary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Bunker Hill Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Burroughs Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Burrville Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Cardozo Senior High ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Clark Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Cleveland Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Cook, J.F. Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Cooke, H.D. Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Coolidge Senior High……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Davis Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Deal Junior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Draper Elementary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………
Drew Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Dunbar Senior High ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Eastern Senior High ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Eaton Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
Page
Number
School Boundary Maps (continued)
Eliot Junior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Emery Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Evans Middle …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ferebee-Hope Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Fletcher/Johnson Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Fletcher/Johnson Middle ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Francis Junior High ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Gage-Eckington Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Garfield Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Garnet-Patterson Middle ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Garrison Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Gibbs Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
Green Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hardy Middle……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Harris, C.W. Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Harris, P.R. Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Harris, P.R. Middle ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hart Middle ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……
Hearst Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hendley Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hine Junior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Houston Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hyde Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Janney Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Jefferson Junior High……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Johnson Junior High ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Kenilworth Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ketcham Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Key Elementary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Kimball Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………
King, M.L. Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Kramer Middle …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Lafayette Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
Page
Number
School Boundary Maps (continued)
Langdon Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
LaSalle Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Leckie Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Lincoln Middle …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ludlow-Taylor Elementary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
MacFarland Middle………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Malcolm X Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Mann Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Marshall Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Marshall Middle ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Maury Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
McGogney Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Merritt Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Meyer Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Miller Middle ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Miner Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Montgomery Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Moten Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Murch Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Nalle Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
Noyes Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Orr Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Oyster Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Park View Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Patterson Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Payne Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Peabody Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Plummer Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Powell Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Randle Highlands Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Raymond Elementary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Reed Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
River Terrace Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
Page
Number
School Boundary Maps (continued)
Roosevelt Senior High …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ross Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Rudolph Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Savoy Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Seaton Elementary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Shadd Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Shaed Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Shaw Junior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Shepherd Elementary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Simon Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Slowe Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Smothers Elementary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sousa Middle ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Spingarn Senior High……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Stanton Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Stevens Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Stoddert Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Stuart-Hobson Middle …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Takoma Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Terrell, M.C. Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………
Terrell, R.H. Junior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thomas Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thomson Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Truesdell Elementary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tubman Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Turner Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tyler Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Van Ness Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
Walker-Jones Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Watkins Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Webb Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
West Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Wheatley Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
261
262
263
264
265
Page
Number
School Boundary Maps (continued)
Whittier Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Wilkinson Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Wilson, J.O. Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Wilson, W. Senior High …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Winston Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Woodson, H.D. Senior High ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Young Elementary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
School Building Profiles ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Area A ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ballou Senior High
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Birney Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Douglass Swing Space ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Draper Elementary
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ferebee-Hope Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
Green Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Harris, P.R. Educational Center ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hart Middle ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hendley Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Johnson Junior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
King,, M.L. Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Leckie Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Malcolm X Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
McGogney Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Moten Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
Patterson Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Savoy Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Simon Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Terrell, M.C. Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Turner Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
Wilkinson Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Area B ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Anacostia Senior High
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
273
274
275
275
276
276
277
277
278
278
279
279
280
280
281
281
282
282
283
283
284
284
285
286
287
Page
Number
School Building Profiles (continued)
Area B (continued)
Beers Elementary
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Davis Elementary
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Garfield Elementary
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ketcham Elementary
……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………
Kimball Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Kramer Middle
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Orr Elementary
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Randle Highlands Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sousa Middle
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Stanton Elementary
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Winston Elementary
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Area C ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Aiton Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Benning Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Brown, Ronald Middle ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Burrville Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Drew Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Evans Middle
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Fletcher/Johnson Educational Center ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Harris, C.W. Elementary
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Houston Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Kenilworth Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Merritt Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Nalle Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Plummer Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………
River Terrace Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Shadd Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Smothers Elementary
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thomas Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Woodson, H.D. Senior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Area D ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Amidon Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
287
288
288
289
289
290
290
291
291
292
292
293
294
294
295
295
296
296
297
297
298
298
299
299
300
300
301
301
302
302
303
304
Page
Number
School Building Profiles (continued)
Area D (continued)
Bowen Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Brent Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Eastern Senior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Eliot Junior High …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Gibbs Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hine Junior High …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
304
305
305
306
306
307
Jefferson Junior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ludlow-Taylor Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Maury Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Miner Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Payne Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Peabody Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
School Without Walls Senior High ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
Stuart-Hobson Middle ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Terrell, R.H. Junior High ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tyler Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Van Ness Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Walker Jones Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Watkins Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
Wilson, J.O. Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Area E ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Backus Middle ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Brookland Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Browne Junior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Bunker Hill Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Burroughs Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Cook, J.F. Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Dunbar Senior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Emery Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hamilton Swing Space ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Langdon Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Lee, Mamie D. Special Education …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
307
308
308
309
309
310
310
311
311
312
312
313
313
314
315
316
316
317
317
318
318
319
319
320
320
321
Page
Number
School Building Profiles (continued)
Area E (continued)
Marshall Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Moore, Luke C. Senior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Noyes Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Phelps Senior High …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Shaed Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Slowe Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Spingarn Senior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Taft Swing Space ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Washington, M.M. Senior High ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Webb Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Wheatley Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Young Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
Area F ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Adams Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
321
322
322
323
323
324
324
325
325
326
326
327
328
329
Bancroft Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Banneker Senior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Bell Multicultural Senior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Bruce-Monroe Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
Cardozo Senior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Cleveland Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Cooke, H.D. Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Francis Junior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Gage-Eckington Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Garnet-Patterson Middle ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Garrison Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Lincoln Middle ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Meyer Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Montgomery Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Park View Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Reed, Marie Elementary
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ross Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Seaton Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
329
330
330
331
331
332
332
333
333
334
334
335
335
336
336
337
337
338
Page
Number
School Building Profiles (continued)
Area F (continued)
Shaw Junior High …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Stevens Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thompson Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tubman Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Area G ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Deal Junior High …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Eaton Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ellington Senior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hardy Middle ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hearst Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
Hyde Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Janney Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Key Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Lafayette Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Mann Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………
Murch Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
Oyster Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sharpe Health Special Education ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Stoddert Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Wilson, W. Senior High ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Area H ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Barnard Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
338
339
339
340
341
342
342
343
343
344
344
345
345
346
346
347
347
348
348
349
350
351
Brightwood Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Clark Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Coolidge Senior High ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
LaSalle Elementary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
MacFarland Middle ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
Powell Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
Raymond School …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Roosevelt Senior High ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Rudolph Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Shepherd Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
351
352
352
353
353
354
354
355
355
356
Page
Number
School Building Profiles (continued)
Area H (continued)
Takoma Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Truesdell Elementary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
West Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Whittier Elementary ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………
356
357
357
358
Component Replacement Master Plan ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……
Air Handling System Replacement Priority List …………………………………………………………………………………………………
Boiler Overhauls Priority List ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Boiler Replacements Priority List ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …
Chiller Overhaul Priority List ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Chiller Replacements Priority List ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Electrical Upgrade Priority List …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Elevators Replacement Priority List ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Fire Alarm System, Intercom, Master Clock Upgrades Priority List ………………………………………………………………………………
Generator Replacement Priority List ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
High Pressure Steam Plan Conversions List ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Roof Replacement Priority List …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tunnel Piping Refurnishment ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tunnel Refurnishment Priority List ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Window Replacements Projects …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
359
360
362
364
369
370
373
378
379
380
385
386
391
392
393
We want to express our appreciation to the following individuals who participated in the planning process for this update.
Ellen Amey
Ronald Austin
Lisa Bailey
Patricia J. Bailey
Sharon Bean
Marlene Berlin
Mary Penn-Beveney
Stephanie Bridgeforth
G.H. Brown
Roy Brown
Jame Butler
Florine Bruton
Dolores Bryant
Michael Burke
Gladys Camp
Vera M. Carley
Nelly Choy
Frances Christian
Cecelia Cienska
Charlene Dick
Pam Dozier
Valerie Dunbar
Dane Edley
Mary Filardo
Judy Floy
Joan Fontaine
Wanda Fox
Erasmo Garza
Joseph Glover
Terry Goings
Joyce Grimes
Cheri Harris
Lovie Hawkins
Walter Hawthorne
Exlee Hipp
Albertha Hipp
Walter Hawthorne
Shirley Hopkinson
Barbara Joaquin
Rosemarie Joaquin
C. Kenneth Johnson
Mattie Jones
Thomas Jones
Toney Jones
Keenan Keller
Christopher Klose
Julie Koczela
Kapindi Kroma
William Lockridge
Jose Lagos
Cedric Lynch
Germaine Lynch
Ethel Martin
Tracie Martin
Sally McLain
Vera McCarley
R.Melick
Ester Miranda
Monalisa Mobley
Victor Molina
Virginia Montoya
Mary Moran
Sheila Miller
Reid A.Muoior
Cherie Nichols
N.A. Opiotenniove
Muriel Page
Verdelle P. Paige
Rosalind Palmer
John Parisi
Kenneth Parker
Madeline V. Pepe
Brenda Pfeiffer
Joseph Poles
Andrew Reece
Cathy Reilly
Victoria Rivera
Charles Robinson
D.M.Ros
Larisa Rubinfil
Cheryl Rucker
Josh Sasnoff
Betty Shamwell
Ella Shaw
Charles Simons
Dwight Singleton
Samantha Smith
Ted Smith
Dave Smole
John Sparrow
Jordan Spooner
Brian Stephenson
Ginette Suarez
Steve Tarason
Arthur Taylor
Beverdinez Terrell
Aubrey Thagand
Iris Toyer
Juddone Void
Carmelita Walke
Heather Weaver
C. White
Brian S. Williams
Robin Winer
Serena Wiltshire
DCPS, Office of Facilities Management/Planning Design & Construction
Sarah J. Woodhead AIA, Chief of Facilities, Office of Facilities Management
Lucian Coleman, Interim Deputy Director
Robin R. A. O’Hara, Planning Unit Manager
Charles E.Obi, Architect/Planner
Richard E. Smith II, Architect/Planner
Donna G. Green, GIS Analyst/Statistician
Pauline Ashley-Tucker, Staff Assistant
Daniel Gohl, Principal, McKinley Technical High School
Deanna Neumann, DCPS Staff Augmentation - Public Pathways
Kaye Savage, DCPS Staff Augmentation - DMJM Project Manager
Marshall Pearson Feaster, DCPS Staff Augmentation – The Kerry S. Pearson LLC
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
OVERVIEW
In 2000, the Board of Education approved “A New Generation of Schools” Facilities Master Plan (FMP). That plan described the
condition of DCPS school facilities, established planning goals and principles, and proposed an ambitious capital plan to modernize
the current inventory of schools. In 2001 and 2002, updates were approved by the Board of Education. The following updated
Facilities Master Plan highlights the progress and challenges of implementing the plan. This update continues to support the goals
and general recommendations of the Committee of 21 as presented in 2000. However, it has been modified to reflect recent
programmatic changes, fiscal constraints, and charter school legislation.
The Process
The current update process began in November of 2002 and included an integrated effort to reach out to a number of stakeholders
both inside and outside DCPS. The following points highlight major components of the Facilities Master Plan development process:
•
A total of twenty-four (24) Community Meetings were convened across the city to gather input and present draft
recommendations. These meetings were held in three rounds in each of the eight (8) geographic planning areas. The first
round introduced the Facilities Master Plan update process, reviewed the 2000 Facilities Master Plan, and discussed the
impact of capital funding on DCPS facilities planning. The second round examined student enrollment distribution patterns at
schools, the program capacities for each school within the planning area, examined the existing boundaries for each school,
and gathered input from the community on these and other issues important to the community. The third and final round
presented draft recommendations for the Planning Areas to be included in the Facilities Master Plan.
•
In addition to the comments received at the community meetings, other individuals, members of Parent Teacher Associations,
Local School Restructuring Teams and other community groups have submitted comments on the draft recommendations.
These comments have been considered in finalizing the document.
•
Facilities staff met with the executive directors of community development corporations (CDCs), community-based
development organizations (CBDOs), educational advocacy groups and other public sector departments and agencies.
Meetings were convened with the staff from the Office of Planning, the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic
Development, and the Department of Housing and Community Development.
•
Additional meetings with the Departments of Health, Recreation and Libraries were held to examine opportunities to leverage
public resources while using public schools as anchors in communities.
•
Simultaneous to the public input, an internal DCPS review process gathered the programmatic needs of the planning areas.
This has included meetings with Special Education, Academic Services, Divisional Assistant Superintendents, and the
Superintendent’s Operations Team.
•
A complete and comprehensive identification of boundaries for neighborhood schools has been developed. These boundary
lines are being proposed to eliminate all gray areas from school closings, consolidations, and usage changes since the last
complete adopted boundaries in 1977. Criteria are being proposed for a process to change boundaries in the future as
needed.
•
The Facilities Master Plan reflects the presence of charter schools. These schools were involved in the process to better
coordinate long term planning. Two (2) meetings were held and a survey was posted on the web for the charter schools to
update information and to establish the need/desire for space. Follow up with individual charter schools has occurred upon
request.
•
Each school profile was updated to reflect the current state of the facility and programs offered at the site. These profiles will
be posted on the Web.
Vision for a New Generation of Schools
Building on the District of Columbia Public School’s vision “to make the Washington, DC school system exemplary,” the
Facilities Master Plan fosters this vision to create a New Generation of Schools.
The Vision of the Facilities Master Plan is to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Create a new generation of 21st Century schools for DCPS through modernization, additions and replacements
Provide for buildings that are in reasonable and sufficient condition
Make sure the design of space is appropriate for instructional and programmatic use
Ensure the District efficiently uses space
Provide updated and modernized facilities that are flexible and can accommodate various methods of delivering instruction,
and
Create environments that permit students to actualize their creativity and flourish in the least restrictive environment.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
2
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
DCPS Schools
The Goals and Recommendations
In the 2000 Facilities Master Plan, the Committee of 21 made 15 recommendations to
guide future planning decisions. This Facilities Master Plan Update in most respects
supports those goals in the face of many challenges and pressures to ‘do less’.
However, the recommendations have been adjusted to reflect lessons learned on
several fronts. DCPS continues to support the following recommendations:
2000 Plan
‘03 Update
Elementary
300-500
300-600
Middle/Junior High
400-600
500-800
High School
600-1000
800-1200
City-wide Schools
under 600
Varies
‘Right Sizing’ schools through Modernization and Consolidation
As part of the modernization/replacement of schools in poor and obsolete condition, DCPS plans to reduce the capacity and square
footage of buildings to fit the projected enrollment for the neighborhood. For schools that are designated as having historic
resources and therefore not eligible to be razed, the district will review neighboring schools for possible consolidations and seek colocation with charter schools, city services, and other compatible partners. The goal of the master plan is to ensure that all of the
District’s schools are efficiently utilized.
School Size
Current educational research on successful schools and the DC communities clearly favor small schools. Small schools allow
greater student and staff participation in the teaching and learning process. They tend to have more neighborhood and parent
involvement, and they generally have the flexibility to address individual student needs. At the same time, staff at schools that are
‘too small’ often express disappointment that they cannot offer the same diversity of program as the larger schools such as art and
music programs, foreign language programs, etc. As the educational specifications are prepared for modernizations, facilities staff
works with the teachers and administrators as well as central office curriculum staff to build an optimal size school that supports
smallness and diversity. The adjacent table shows the proposed school sizes from the 2000 Master Plan and a proposed revision
that supports larger programs where applicable.
Currently very few school populations are undersized when compared to these desired school sizes, although many schools are
undersized compared to their current building size. However, as the population continues to decline and some areas reorganize,
many elementary and middle schools will drop below the desired school sizes.
Retaining School Buildings and Sites
The Committee of 21 recommended that DCPS retain all school buildings to serve as swing spaces, address special program
needs, or guard against shifting demographics in the future. If DCPS considers school consolidations in response to too small
schools or excess capacity, it will retain the buildings to provide opportunities for charter schools in the preferred ‘stand-alone’
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
3
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
model or for public-private partners. Some facilities may be marketed for development if this can be done in compliance with
regulatory mandates giving charter schools ‘first preference’ for facilities.
The retention of most sites is consistent with desires expressed by the city planners who are projecting to attract up to 100,000
residents back to the city. With the targeted investment in underutilized and deteriorating neighborhoods, the city hopes to
revitalize many neighborhoods in the central and eastern parts of the city. They have asked DCPS to be a ‘partner’ in this effort by
helping to build schools as community anchors.
Neighborhood Schools
Currently elementary schools, and to the extent feasible middle schools and junior high schools, are within walking distance of their
students because no school bus transportation is provided. High school students use the public transit systems. One of the goals
of the master plan and the city’s planning efforts is to promote the ‘neighborhood school’ and encourage local investment and
participation. This concept also supports smaller schools and safe neighborhoods as key to the future desirability of the city’s
schools.
Historical Significance
DCPS operates many beautiful historic buildings that define the character of their communities and preserve a rich history for
generations of Washington residents. Revitalizing these buildings for public use is a priority for the city. This may mean that DCPS
preserves larger and less efficient buildings than might otherwise be required for the enrollment. Options for re-envisioning under
enrolled historic buildings include:
§ Increasing enrollment through consolidations with neighboring schools
§ Co-locating with a charter school or public/private partner
§ Allowing a short or mid-term use pending a better indication of the local demographic changes
§ Underdeveloped wings or floors of the building
§ Allowing a long term lease or ultimately sale of the building
District-wide Pre-K and Special Education Students
The inclusion of special education populations at their home school and the expansion of early childhood programs are planning
priorities. As these programs are phased into the local schools, there will be less space available.
Open Space Classrooms
There are 35 open space schools or additions in the District. The dominant opinion is that open space classrooms do not provide
desirable learning environments and should be remodeled with walls or replaced.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
4
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Community Use/Schools as Community Anchors
The District of Columbia has a history of collaborative arrangements within school facilities. These may include recreational
programs, health clinics, or other public services. DCPS foresees many opportunities to establish mutually beneficial partnerships
with city, non-profit, and educational institutions that can improve the educational environment. The mayor has asked that his own
planning process explore ways to encourage collaboration and support schools as ‘Community Anchors’. This expansive thought
must be undertaken in a manner compatible with the competing needs of the charter schools.
Career Education and High School Reform
Programmatic changes at the high school level with regard to career and technical education programs are discussed in Chapter 3.
The policy implications for these changes with regard to facilities planning highlight the importance of flexibility. Shifting
enrollments, growing and changing programs, and the need to reach out to partners in the business and educational communities
will create a dynamic environment for high schools over the next 10 years.
Public-Private and Public-Public Partnerships
Partnerships could take a variety of forms from co-locating organizations with educational functions that reinforce the curriculum or
neighborhood to joint redevelopment of neighborhood housing and services. There are curricular opportunities, opportunities to
increase the utilization of buildings, and economic advantages to partnerships. DCPS will work proactively with the city to identify
opportunities and enable mutually beneficial partnerships.
Charter Schools
The goal of the Long-Range Facilities Master Plan is to ensure that all D.C. public school students are able to attend school in safe,
educationally appropriate, and operationally efficient school buildings. With nearly 14% of the District’s students attending charter
schools, DCPS must expand its traditional focus of facilities planning for only DCPS schools to include planning for charter schools
that indicate a need for space. Chapter 4 provides background on existing charter schools and outlines the process for identifying
excess space and providing for its reuse.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
5
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
The Recommendations
This Facilities Master Plan Update makes several key recommendations that were not in the 2000 Facilities Master Plan and its
recent revisions.
1) This Update proposes ten planning studies to evaluate the need for boundary changes and/or consolidations (Chapter 2).
2) Consistent with the high school reform model, this Update plans the transition of all 9th grade students into the high schools
(Chapter 3).
3) This Update accepts that the consistent application of the middle school model for Grades 6-8 is an academic program
decision. Once DCPS has adopted a comprehensive and consistent philosophy of instruction and grade configuration for the
middle school years, the school buildings will be modified as needed to support the program (Chapter 3).
4) This Update recognizes the public school students housed in charter schools and begins the process for developing a
facilities plan that includes charter schools (Chapter 4).
5) This update acknowledges the importance of developing a fiscally responsible plan. Chapter 5 proposes a mosaic of cost
offsets, revenue sources, and phasing plans that could be implemented as part of a coordinated government effort to fund ‘A
New Generation of Schools’ in the District of Columbia.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
6
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Chapter 1
Planning Environment
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Chapter 1
The DCPS Planning Environment
•
The District of Columbia public schools traces the origins of its
current planning efforts to the seminal 2000 Facilities Master
Plan (FMP). The 2000 Plan set the school system on the path
for the comprehensive modernization of all DCPS facilities
over a course of ten to fifteen years. This ambitious plan
marked the first completed planning effort since 1967. In 2001
and 2002, modest revisions to the plan were approved, and its
recommendations were implemented.
The 2000 FMP is notable in the degree of public support it
engendered and for the framework it established. It called for
all schools to be made safe, sound, and educationally
appropriate as defined by explicit standards. It called for the
downsizing of the DCPS inventory gradually by replacing large
facilities with smaller facilities where appropriate, based on
projected enrollment.
In the three years since the development of the original plan,
significant progress has been made in its implementation:
• Templates have been developed for each type of
school slated for modernization
• Construction standards have been developed
• Five schools have been fully modernized (Oyster,
Barnard, Miner, Key, and Randle Highlands
Elementary Schools)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All other schools that preceded the master plan are
now either in construction or completed
The first tier of 10 schools to be modernized under the
master plan are ready for construction
Changes to project planning parameters have been
reviewed by the Board of Education, signaling essential
oversight procedures have been developed and
incorporated into the program
DCPS has been recognized with a Vision Award for the
quality of the design work created under the program.
Schools that have been modernized have attracted
new students. All five schools have demonstrated
increased enrollment
Five-year enrollment projections have been prepared
for every school to assist with school specific planning
Building capacities were reviewed and revised to
reflect current programs
A special education facilities plan has been prepared
and nearly 1000 additional seats have been allocated
in the last two years to move students from private
placements into home schools.
DCPS has developed a high school reform model that
will pave the way for comprehensive high school
planning
Wrap-around social services models have been
located in transformation schools broadening the role
of schools in families and neighborhoods.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
8
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
environment looks bleak. At the same time, the federal
government is struggling with its own growing budget deficit in
the aftermath of the War in Iraq and reconstruction efforts.
Economic and Fiscal Environment
Since the terrorist strikes of September 11, 2001, the national
economy has been unstable and sluggish. Cities and states
across the country face significant revenue shortfalls and large
operating deficits. The tourism industry, one of the District’s
largest employers, was especially hard hit. This has had a
significant impact on the District’s revenues. Although recent
indicators suggest that the economy is improving, experts
warn that it may take years before we realize full recovery.
City Planning Environment
Faced with the present fiscal picture and looming capital
demands, the city is developing strategies to do more with
less. Through both the comprehensive planning process and
a coordinated budget process, staffs across departments and
agencies have been meeting to discuss opportunities to share
space and possibly collaborate in a shared mission.
This year, Washington, D.C. government responded to the
economic downturn through a combination of budget
reductions and small tax increases.
Compounding the
shortfall in tax revenue, the city also has reached the limits of
its bonding capacity. Lacking the breadth and diversity of a
state government, the city struggles to achieve better than
average bond ratings. The city has begun the process of
dramatically scaling back its capital plan, from schools to
firehouses to the increasingly demanding public transportation
infrastructure.
Population Growth – The city’s population declined more than
20% between 1970 and 2000. At the same time, public school
enrollment declined from 146,000 students in 1970 to 79,000
students in 2002. The city has set a goal to grow by 100,000
people. The Williams mayoral administration expects to attract
a diverse population who are willing to invest in their
neighborhoods and to ultimately make the city a better
metropolis. If successful, this growth could bring 10,000 new
students to DC schools.
Frustrated by the limitations for revenue generation and the
critical need to improve the city’s infrastructure, many key
individuals and organizations have challenged the federal
government to become a more active partner with the city.
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has introduced the
Fair Federal Compensation Act and the No Taxation Without
Representation Act to address these issues. Without a greater
federal role in capital funding for schools, the fiscal
SNIP Neighborhoods – The City has targeted twelve
residential neighborhoods for strategic investment (SNIP), ten
commercial strips for revitalization, and several areas for
intensive housing recovery and rehabilitation. In addition,
there are numerous renewal programs that are replacing older
and/or traditional public housing and subsidized apartment
areas with mixed income housing neighborhoods.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
9
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
The goal is to spur public and private reinvestment in
emerging/transitional neighborhoods by applying a variety of
investment strategies. The City believes that investment in the
local public schools is a critical ingredient to the revitalization
effort and has requested that DCPS consider ways to focus
capital investments at schools that are located in SNIPs.
There are more than 40 schools located in or adjacent (serving
students) to SNIPs – far more than DCPS can invest in at this
time. However, staffs are continuing to work together to
identify opportunities for public/private collaborations that may
leverage limited funds.
Schools as Community Anchors – One of the prime directives
in the visioning process for the city is to link the programmatic
activities of the schools with health and human services to
“nurture the emotional and physical health” of the
neighborhood.
The mayor wants to develop schools as
‘community anchors’. This directive supports the goals of the
DCPS Facilities Master Plan in which school communities had
expressed a strong interest in pursuing collaborative
arrangements to create community hubs at local schools.
DCPS is creating wrap-around services at transformation
schools to be models for other projects around the city. The
full implementation of ‘schools as community anchors’ holds
great promise for the District’s c hildren and families.
Schools ‘as community anchors’ also mean schools being the
central focus for other community activities. An elementary
school that is adjacent to a health clinic, local library or parks
and recreational facility gives the local public and the school
population the opportunity to share services without sacrificing
institutional privacy.
Co-Location and Public/Public Partnerships – The city is
assessing the condition and adequacy of public facilities. As
facilities plans are developed for libraries, parks and recreation
facilities, and other compatible community service providers,
the staffs will coordinate capital plans and consider co-location
opportunities.
Expansion of the DCPS Planning Role for Charter
Schools
The goal of the Facilities Master Plan is to ensure that all D.C.
public school students are able to attend school in safe,
educationally appropriate, and operationally efficient school
buildings. In 2000, this goal only applied to DCPS facilities.
However, with nearly 14% of the District’s students attending
charter schools, DCPS is expanding its traditional focus of
facilities planning to include planning for charter schools that
have indicated a need for space.
There has been consistent pressure from the charter school
community for DCPS to identify and lease excess space.
Recent legislation requires DCPS to develop a co-location
plan for charter schools.
As DCPS staff and charter
representatives begin to explore options for using excess
space, the optimal arrangement may not be co-location but the
consolidation of several DCPS schools and the leasing of
closed school to charter schools.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
10
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Social and Political Environment
As the population in the surrounding Washington, DC
metropolitan area grew, many families moved out of the city,
leaving behind a predominantly poor African American
population. According to recent census reports, there are
more children living in poverty with each succeeding decade,
more single heads of households, and more concerns with
drug addiction. Like many urban school districts throughout
the country, DCPS is struggling with shrinking budgets and
increasing social needs.
DCPS’ leadership has been stable with a consistent
philosophy. This has laid a strong foundation for continued
progress in both the educational and facilities areas.
There are several trends that may bring positive changes for
the future of the public schools. They are:
§
§
§
§
§
In the past ten years, DCPS has experienced many changes
to its management structure and to its educational and
operational leadership. However, for the last three years,
The city’s population is stabilizing;
The number of annual births, which had been declining for
decades, has leveled out;
Modernized schools are attracting students and teachers;
High school reform efforts call for more rigorous
performance standards;
Community and social services are being co-located in
targeted schools buildings to offer ‘wrap-around’ services
to students and families.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
11
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Chapter 2
Enrollment, Capacity and Space
Available
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
Chapter 2
Enrollment, Capacity, and Space Available
Background
The Facilities Master Plan (FMP) provides a road map for both capital and
non-capital actions by identifying key issues and proposing both short and
long term solutions. It must be a dynamic document that incorporates
annual updates, proposes areas for additional study, and acknowledges
changing circumstances.
A successful Facilities Master Plan (FMP) includes:
• Statistically valid multi-year enrollment projections
• Accurate and defensible school capacities
• Building standards to adequately support the educational programs
• Clear public policy and goals
• A fiscally responsible implementation plan
• Community understanding and support
Preliminary 2003 enrollment indicates continued decline in DCPS
schools. This was anticipated as charter schools continue to grow
and the effects of lower birth rates roll through the system. It is
likely that housing unit turnover is also causing some of the
decline and that there could be a rebound at some schools as new
units are built to replace those taken out of service.
Historical Enrollments
The following table provides enrollment data for the past ten years
for all public school children including both DCPS students and
charter school students.
Year
DCPS
This chapter highlights key components in the planning process and the
implication for future planning efforts.
Enrollment Trends and Forecast
The enrollment of students attending public schools (DCPS and charter)
in the District of Columbia has declined steadily over the past decade
from 80,450 in 1994 to 79,122 in 2002. Since the advent of charter
schools in 1997, students have shifted from DCPS and private schools,
into charter schools. In 2002 there were 67,522 students attending 147
DCPS schools, and numerous alternative placements and programs.
Approximately 11,600 students attended 35 charter schools on 37
campus sites in 2002.
Charter Schools
Total
1994
1995
80,450
79,802
0
0
80,450
79,802
1999
2000
78,648 77,111 71,889 70,762
1996
68,925
0
1997
300
1998
3,594
2001
2002
68,449 67,522
6,980
9,656
10,651 11,600
78,648 77,411 75,483 77,742
78,581
79,100 79,122
The number of students enrolled in the DCPS [non-charter] public
schools has decreased by 16.27% or 13,126 students since 1993.
Since 1993, thirty [30] DCPS school buildings have been closed.
The following table indicates the enrollment by grade level for
each of the past ten years for the District of Columbia Public
Schools.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
13
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
History Of Enrollment By Grade 1993-2002
Grade
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
PreSchool
Pre-K
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Ungraded
Total
1,152
4,064
6,986
7,195
6,728
6,149
5,870
5,435
5,211
5,394
4,935
5,003
5,403
4,145
3,303
3,705
80,678
1,274
4,234
7,628
7,184
6,515
6,365
5,783
5,457
4,978
5,244
5,031
4,923
4,904
3,920
3,203
3,807
80,450
1,237
4,150
7,736
7,931
6,533
6,063
5,852
5,332
4,980
5,052
4,749
5,159
4,896
3,700
2,972
3,460
79,802
1,105
3,939
7,469
7,912
7,114
6,271
5,442
5,332
4,742
4,875
4,625
4,951
4,554
3,694
3,042
3,581
78,648
1,252
3,904
6,982
7,756
6,972
6,644
5,357
4,850
4,713
4,802
4,376
4,913
4,473
3,549
2,961
3,607
77,111
1,134
3,697
6,446
7,094
6,772
6,101
5,607
4,608
4,175
4,557
4,083
4,387
3,786
3,187
2,572
3,683
71,889
1,149
3,344
6,045
6,775
6,408
6,190
5,590
5,171
4,116
3,742
3,989
4,627
3,689
3,356
2,811
3,760
70,762
1,075
3,214
5,357
6,253
6,213
5,839
5,830
5,281
4,777
3,766
3,371
4,207
3,606
3,183
2,785
4,168
68,925
1,079
3,026
5,203
5,751
5,752
5,845
5,561
5,515
4,945
4,261
3,662
4,012
3,584
3,119
2,815
4,319
68,449
1,270
3,011
4,951
5,402
5,205
5,403
5,598
5,297
5,065
4,452
4,051
4,104
3,285
3,085
2,705
4,638
67,522
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
14
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
Variables that May Impact Future Enrollments
Live Births
A variety of factors effect enrollment and future projections.
Birth rates, housing turnover, student choice regarding public
charter and private institutions contribute to a complex picture
of both increasing and decreasing patterns. Enrollment
projections are in part made using resident live birth statistics
for the District of Columbia. A cohort survival method of
projections is modified with housing data as well as program
changes (i.e. new Pre-K or special ed classes).
The most difficult segment of the K-12
population to predict is each year’s
kindergarten class. In order to project
the kindergarten population for each
year, statistical profiles of residential
birth data are drawn, then matched to
anticipated enrollment patterns and
applied to individual schools.
Cohort Survival Method
Enrollment projections for the School District are prepared in
the winter using the actual membership information. The
Cohort-Survivorship method “ages” students ahead through
the grade levels and calculates a ratio based on a 5-year
history. This ratio is then applied to future years.
However, the data yielded by the basic survivorship model is
only the foundation for the enrollment projections. The model
data must then be compared to population growth associated
with housing patterns, charter school growth, and program
changes.
Overall trends in DCPS show steady out-migration of students
as they age into the older grades. This pattern has been
constant for the last ten years, accelerating in recent years
with the growth in charter schools. Individual schools show
different patterns based on the perception of the school.
DCPS hopes to mitigate this pattern through better buildings
and educational reform efforts.
The number of resident live births for the
District of Columbia has declined
significantly in the past fifteen years.
The number of births peaked in 1990 at
11,806 and in 2000 (the last year in
which data is available) that number was
7,666. The birth rate has been relatively
stable from 1998 to 2000. The adjacent
chart illustrates recent live birth data for
the District of Columbia. Tracking data
from birth statistics indicates that
approximately 62% of the resident live
births for the District of Columbia enter
kindergarten five years later.
DC LIVE BIRTHS
1985-2000
Year
Resident
Live Births
1985
1986
10043
10043
1987
1988
10178
10514
1989
1990
1991
11567
11806
11650
1992
1993
10939
10614
1994
1995
9911
8993
1996
1997
8377
7916
1998
1999
7678
7513
2000
7666
New Housing
The District of Columbia is experiencing a surge in new and
replacement housing. From data provided by the District of
Columbia Office of Economic Development, 413 units have
been completed recently, 1950 multi-family and 149 singlefamily units are under construction and another 319 units are
being proposed. The City is projecting that more than 30,000
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
15
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
new units will be built in the next 15 years – many of them
east of the Anacostia River.
Based on current trends that show a decline in the number of
families with children in the city, it is not clear whether new
housing (not replacement) will cause an increase in public
school enrollment. Currently there is approximately one
public school student for every ten residents. It this trend
where to continue, new housing could bring as many as
10,000 new students into public schools in the District.
However, much of the ‘new’ housing is expected to be
‘replacement’ units at a lower density. The positive impact on
school enrollment may only occur after a time of decline in the
neighborhood, during which older housing units are emptied,
razed and replaced. Examples of this are already occurring
in Hope VI development areas. Housing that is empty and
boarded up for example surrounds Shadd Elementary School.
The school population has dropped to under 200 students. In
order to use the facility to capacity and to address the swing
space needs of Wheatley Elementary, the latter was moved
into Shadd for the duration of the Wheatley modernization.
By the time Wheatley moves back into its modernized facility,
the neighborhood around Shadd should start to be rebuilt and
there should be growth in the Shadd enrollment.
Private School Enrollment
Approximately 18% of school-age children living in the District
of Columbia attend private schools. Parents choose to send
their children to private or public schools for a number of
reasons including locations of the school, quality of the
educational program, family tradition, and cost of tuition.
If the District passes a Voucher Plan and allocates funds for
thousands of additional students to attend private schools, the
percent of students in private schools may increase slightly –
limited by space available in the private market. However, the
current projections do not assume a significant impact from
this potential change.
DCPS Projected Enrollment
Based on lower birth rates, modest housing growth, current
out-migration trends, and assumptions about the continued
expansion of charter schools, DCPS Facilities staff are
projecting that enrollment in DCPS will decline by 6,00010,000 students over the next ten years. The following graph
illustrates three different enrollment scenarios: Low, Medium
and High.
Charter Projected Enrollment
Between 1998 and 2000, the enrollment for charter schools
Projections for DCPS
Projected
Enrollment
66000
64000
62000
60000
58000
56000
54000
low
medium
high
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
16
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
grew substantially. The positive impact of this growth was to
stabilize overall public school enrollment in the District for
nearly four years.
However, this Plan assumes that the
enrollment growth for charter schools will level out as the
number of new schools chartered stabilizes at 1-3 per year
and existing charter schools reach capacity.
DCPS Facilities staff projects that enrollment overall will
continue to decline in the District by 2-3,000 students as the
effects of the lower birth rates in 1990’s rolls through the
grades.
The following table shows the combined public school
projection for DCPS and charters through 2009.
DCPS and Charter School Forecast
Projected Enrollment
Projected Public School Enrollment
100,000
80,000
60,000
Charter
40,000
DCPS
20,000
0
2003
2004
2005
2006 2007
Year
2008
2009
Capacity Analysis and Implication
When it comes to school building capacity methodology, there
are two general schools of thought – one that the building
(number of classrooms, size, and designated functions)
determines a permanent capacity that can be used year after
year, and the other that the educational programs at a school
impact the building’s function sufficiently to require a more
responsive capacity. The former argues that the building’s
‘design’ capacity is a more consistent and measurable way to
maintain and analyze information. Such a capacity reflects the
true maximum. The latter suggests that by ignoring program
and staff variations, design capacity does not accurately reflect
space needs, and therefore is not a good basis for facilities
planning for any particular year or the 5-10 year horizon.
This year’s Master Plan Update proposes using hybrid
methodology – a program capacity that is reflecting program
uses at each school but limited by the educational standards
used for new schools. Therefore, a school building’s Program
Capacity reflects the maximum number of students that can be
housed at the school given the school’s existing educational
programs, class size, and staffing. It is not a validation of the
current room usage based on principal’s discretion, but a
blending of the District’s standards (for class size and space
requirements) with school based staffing.
Program capacity calculations must be driven by rules that are
consistent across all schools. Developing an accurate,
consistent, and defensible method for calculating capacity will
enhance the decision-making process and improve long range
planning.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
17
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
Capacity Methodology Historically
Process and Goals
Through 2000, the capacities assigned to DCPS schools
showed both a ‘design’ capacity and a ‘program’ capacity.
Until 1998, the District had a practice of visiting schools on a
periodic basis to update the information. However, when
these capacities were reviewed as part of the Facilities Master
Plan process, both staff and community raised concerns about
the reliability of the room use information and factoring the
average class size.
In the winter of 2002-03, facilities staff toured every school
building to identify for every room the current use and class
size. This information was compared to actual staff rosters
and recorded class enrollments. Initially all classroom uses
were identified. In March, the information was tabulated and
sent back to principals to verify. Staff also met with groups of
principals to discuss the new methodology and receive
comments.
As a surrogate measure of space and capacity, the 2000
Facilities Master Plan used square feet per student (gross
square feet/current enrollment). Schools were determined to
be over or under utilized if they deviated significantly from the
‘desired’ square feet per student. Using this measure, the
Master Plan determined that the school district had thousands
of square feet of available space that either could be used by
others or could be reduced as schools were modernized or
replaced. A 15-year modernization program was developed to
significantly reduce the amount of square feet in the district
through selective demolition and reuse.
DCPS wanted the new capacities to meet the following goals:
As the District began to modernize older buildings using the
square feet per student standards, it began to notice several
exceptions to the criteria. First, many older buildings are not
as efficient as new buildings – larger hallways, inefficient
circulation, obsolete laboratory classrooms, and oversized
boiler/fan rooms. Second, many older buildings had additional
facilities that were not part of the new school standards, such
as auditoriums, pools, and recreation centers. Requested to
preserve many historic buildings, the District would be unable
to meet the target square feet reductions.
•
•
•
•
To measure efficient room use and be consistent across all
schools;
To accurately reflect space available or needed given the
current educational programs;
To provide a way to prioritize space across the entire
system;
To respect the principal’s judgment on program space
needs.
Efficient Room Use: In schools that are under-utilized,
classrooms that may have previously been used for activities
such as computer labs can now be utilized for classrooms or
other, coveted purposes. In schools that are over-utilized,
administrators may convert substandard spaces into
classrooms. For these reasons, a common measuring stick
was needed to judge all schools. For this analysis, ‘efficient
room use’ is measured using the District’s adopted space
standards for new and modernized schools. For example, a
new school would be allocated one computer lab for a small
elementary school. This same allocation is used to develop
the capacity.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
18
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
Reflecting Capacity Accurately: Capacity must reflect the
current program uses if it is going to be a useful planning tool.
At some schools, this may conflict with efficient room use as
defined by the standards. Those conflicts are recorded for
analysis.
Prioritizing system-wide needs: There are many non-schoolbased users in the District’s school buildings. Capacities need
to reflect that some users are lower priority and ‘temporary’
pending a high priority use.
For example, dedicated
classrooms to ‘Before and After Care’ programs are
considered to be available if a higher priority user needs it.
Respect the principal’s judgment: School-based budgeting
places program decisions and accountability at the school
level. Within reason, the principal’s decisions regarding
staffing and space uses should be weighed against Districtwide standards. Principals should be given an opportunity to
justify room uses.
Criteria
Capacity Bearing Rooms
Capacity is attributed to classrooms that are greater than 600
square feet and that have a teacher and students assigned to
it full time. Rooms designated for ‘pull-out’ activities or less
than 600 square feet are excluded
Class Size
One of the most important decisions in developing a
capacity formula is defining average class sizes that can
be applied consistently across all schools.
DCPS
developed average class sizes for schools based on the
budget allocation formula for non-Title 1 schools and
based on analysis of current trends for Title 1 schools.
The following class sizes are used to calculate the revised
capacities.
Elementary Schools
Classroom Type
Examples
Class Size
Title1/NonTitle 1
Early Childhood
Head Start, PreK
Kindergarten
Primary
Grades 1-3
18/20
Intermediate
Grades 4-6
20/22
Special Education
Pull-out programs
(number allocated
according to new
school standards)
Administrative
uses in classrooms
Self-contained
Art, Music, Science,
Computer Science,
Reading, Math,
Resource
Conference rooms,
offices, workrooms
6-10
18/20 **
Vacant
Usable
18/20
Other uses
Non-DCPS
Title 1 Parent Rooms
– supports school or
community (TANF,
day care)
20
0
0
0
- not directly
supporting school or
18/20**
community
** Low priority use pending justification from the principal
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
19
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
Middle and High Schools
Classroom Type Examples
Class Size
Title1/ Non
Title 1
Utilization
5/7 periods
3/4 periods
22/24
80%
18/18
80%
Full court*
36/40
80%
Self-contained
Reading,
Resource
Conference,
Offices,
workrooms
10-12
80%
12
80%
**
22/24
80%
Usable
DCPS Districtwide - DC Cap,
admin offices
- Supports
school or
community
(TANF)
22/24
80%
0
NA
English,
Academic
Science,
Classrooms/Labs Business, Art
Auto body,
Vocational Labs Cosmetology,
and ESL
ROTC
Main gym
Special
Education
Small Group
Administration in
Classrooms
Vacant
Other Uses
Non-DCPS
– Not
supporting
school or
community
0
NA
22/24
NA
* Auxiliary gym same as an academic lab
** Low priority use pending justification from the principal Utilization
The students in middle and high schools move from classroom
to classroom in the course of a typical school day. Therefore,
capacity at the secondary level is intended to be only a “snap
shot” of one period. However, because it is rare that all
classrooms can be effectively scheduled every period,
standard practice is to allow for at least 10% of the classrooms
to be vacant during some periods. This 90% utilization would
mean that some teachers would be required to “float” when a
school is at maximum capacity.
Many school districts (recommended here) follow a practice of
80% utilization. This allows most teachers to have their own
classroom during their planning period and requires fewer
‘nomadic’ teachers. This lower utilization is recommended for
the following reasons:
• It is easier to attract and retain teachers;
• It reduces stress on new teachers (those most likely to
be required to float);
• For small schools it does not require significantly more
space. Higher utilization would require teacher’s office
areas for planning periods rather than the smaller team
rooms now specified;
• It is consistent with the small learning communities
reform model encouraged at the high schools.
Issues for Further Review
Many open space schools built during the 1970’s still do not
have permanent walls. Teachers and administrators schedule
their space to accommodate the strengths and weaknesses of
their facility and faculty. However, many find it difficult to fully
utilize the space as intended. It is common for these buildings
to have more square feet per student than enclosed schools
and fewer classrooms than originally designed.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
20
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
Many DCPS schools were designed with community facilities
(recreation centers, pools, and health clinics). Program
capacity does not capture these spaces, whereas square feet
per student measures may. Further analysis may reveal
space available in schools; however, significant capital funds
may be needed to use it for educational activities.
Space Analysis
Overall, the District has capacity for more than 73,000
students in regular or special schools. This capacity assumes
the current level of staffing, some joint use of buildings with
charters and the city, and general obsolescence of many
schools. Approximately 63,000 students attended those
schools in 2002.
A summary of each planning area (Maps 2.1-2.2) indicates
that classroom space may be available in most areas. The
seats available reflect the program capacity minus enrollment
in 2002. ‘Seats Available’ does not automatically mean ‘vacant
classrooms’. It does, however, suggest that a school can
serve more students if the building is used more efficiently.
DCPS supports student choice. Therefore, enrollment at a
given school is a reflection of choice patterns. Several factors
may change school choice patterns over the next 10 years.
§ Modernized schools will become preferred schools
invigorating some neighborhoods.
§ Grade reorganizations may shift more students into
the middle and high schools.
§ The opening of McKinley Technical High School will
expand choice options.
§ High school reform is intended to retain more students
through graduation.
A Case for Consolidation
The 2000 Facilities Master Plan proposed to address the
excess capacity in the DCPS schools through selective
demolition and replacement. This is still a viable strategy
supported in this Updated Plan, but it does not go far enough
to address the fiscal, programmatic and legislative challenges
facing of the District. That Plan did not consider several
factors:
School Size and Program Diversity: The impact of declining
enrollment and the reorganization of grades will reduce
enrollment at some schools so low that they will struggle to
provide a diverse program that includes standard art, music,
foreign language, career education, or advanced placement
classes.
Historic Preservation: Many of the DCPS school buildings are
historic and cannot/should not be razed. This will leave DCPS
with many buildings that are larger than is needed for the
projected enrollment.
Charter Schools: Many charter schools are seeking school
buildings to locate or relocate their programs. Although colocation is an option, most schools (charter and DCPS) prefer
to be housed in independent space for operational and
programmatic reasons.
Fiscal Constraints: The current inventory of schools requires
significant operating and capital investment to keep buildings
safe and educationally sound. Fiscal constraints have already
impacted the school district’s ability to modernize as
scheduled and continue its component replacement program.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
21
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
Consolidation of some schools has the potential to
• Maintain school sizes with enough ‘critical mass’ to
provide a varied and challenging program for all it
students
• Focus operating and capital funds to support the most
number of students
• Move students in modernized facilities sooner
• Provide space for public charter students in age
appropriate facilities.
This Updated Plan identifies several schools that will be
consolidated in the next 1-3 years as appropriate space is
prepared to receive the students. Those schools are:
Phelps Career Education: Consolidate program at Spingarn
HS
Sharpe Health Special School: Create Satellite Centers in up
to three regions at age appropriate schools (elementary,
middle and high).
Bruce ES: Do not reopen as swing space
Planning Studies
In addition to the above closures, this Facilities Master Plan
identifies planning studies in areas throughout the district for
one or more of the following reasons:
§ Current or projected over- or under-utilization
§ Current or projected under-enrollment (school size)
MM Washington Career Education: Consolidate programs at
Cardozo and Roosevelt high schools
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
22
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
23
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
24
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
§
§
§
Need to open a new school
Grade reorganization
Boundary clarification
DCPS will convene planning teams consisting of
representatives from the targeted communities (school staff,
parent and civic community, and other stakeholders) to
consider the following criteria:
§ Projected enrollment vs. available capacity
§ Target school sizes
§ Anticipated housing changes
§ Demographic trends
§ Natural or artificial barriers that affect student walking
patterns
§ Proximity to transportation options and pedestrian
issues
§ Physical condition of the facilities and historic status
§ Educational adequacy of the facilities
§ Plans for program changes or enhancements
§ Community participation and investment
§ Articulation from elementary to mid-level schools and
from mid-level to high schools
§ History of the community
All criteria will reflect the Board of Education’s policies and
goals as highlighted in the previous section.
The goal is to conduct the identified planning studies during
the next two years in preparation for the 2006 Facilities Master
Plan Update. Recommendations from the planning teams will
be forwarded to the superintendent by March of each year.
The superintendent will forward his recommendation to the
Board of Education by May of the same year.
Planning Studies and Target Schools
Area A
Elementary School Study
Draper, M.C. Terrell,
McGogney, Green
Area C
Elementary School Study
Fletcher-Johnson, C.W.
Harris, Nalle, Shadd
Middle School Study
Kelly Miller, Ron Brown,
Fletcher-Johnson
Area D
Elementary School Study
Amidon, Bowen, Brent, Tyler,
Van Ness
Mid-level School Study
Eliot, Hine, R.H. Terrell,
Browne
High School Study
Spingarn, Eastern, Woodson
Area E
Elementary School Study
Schools TBD
Area G
Elementary School Study
All elementary schools
Areas F, G and H
Mid-level School study
Deal, Francis, Hardy,
MacFarland, Takoma
Areas D, F, G and H
High School study
Dunbar, Cardozo, Roosevelt,
Wilson
* Additional schools may be included when the study process
begins
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
25
“Children First…Their Future is Now”
Chapter 3
Program Impacts on Facilities
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Chapter 3
Program Impacts on Facilities
Background
High School Reform
One of the boldest recommendations in the Facilities Master
Plan is the modernization of the entire inventory of DCPS
schools in the next fifteen years. The modernization of
buildings is crucial to the educational mission of the schools if
they are to support contemporary programs and attract
instructional staff.
DCPS has identified high school reform as a priority. This
process started with the Superintendent's Blue Ribbon Panel
on High School Reform that issued its recommendations in
February 2002.
During the 2002-2003 school year,
identification of Career and Technology programs for each
high school provided a framework for curriculum reform,
professional development, and facility modernizations. This
academic framework allows the Facilities Master Plan to
prioritize small capital projects and feasibility studies for
complete modernizations to support instruction.
Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s, DCPS attempted to
maintain the integrity of its buildings through only a component
repair and replacement program. But this approach was only
addressing the deterioration of the buildings in the short term.
The lack of a more comprehensive approach to modernization
allowed the buildings to become inefficient and obsolete.
Many of the DCPS buildings have never been modernized and
look and operate much as they did in the early 1900’s. As
educational programs are initiated, maintained, refined, and/or
phased out, the use of the buildings should be able to support
the academic program.
The DCPS commitment to a modernization program is a
commitment to a quality educational environment for all
students.
This chapter highlights the more recent
programmatic initiatives that impact the use of DCPS facilities.
The academic program needs, as articulated in the Blue
Ribbon Panel Report are founded on providing students with a
challenging curriculum. Key features of the reform model
include the ability to group students in a variety of subjects and
to enable the integration of Career and Technology programs
with traditional college preparatory classes. This will require
that students access not to just individual courses, but also be
matriculated into a sequence of courses that allow for
individual acceleration and targeted remediation.
Career and Technology Academies are academic programs
that provide students with a set of experiences to prepare
them for post-secondary study and a lifetime of employment.
The integration of academic and employment preparation is
based on a commitment that ensures all students are able to
maximize their individual potential and contribution to the
community.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
28
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
The articulation of Career and Technology Academies and the
development of a city-wide plan for the distribution of these
programs represent a crucial step in the alignment of facilities
and academic planning. This plan was in development for two
years and involved all high school principals, the Offices of
Academic Services, Assistant Superintendent for High
Schools, and Facilities Management.
The distribution of Career and Technology Academy Clusters
is designed to ensure equity and access to programs for all
students as well as the concentration of school and DCPS
resources . The plan takes ten Career Clusters (as shown in
Table 3.1) and distributes them among high schools to provide
each school with at least three academies. The district has
been divided into three regions: east, central and west.
To ensure sufficient enrollment to maintain viable programs
and minimize costs, academy clusters that are resource
intensive (e.g. Construction & Design, Hospitality & Tourism)
are supported by the Office of Career and Technology
Education at only one of the neighborhood high schools within
each zone. This will allow students to access all programs
within a reasonable geographic distance of their home, even if
the student's home school does not offer the Academy of the
student's choice. Career Academies will also be offered at
citywide high schools and public charter schools.
Table 3.2
shows the proposed high school academies. DCPS is working
with the city to coordinate these academies with adult
education programs.
The Career Academy model provides a framework in which
advanced academic courses, (e.g. Advanced Placement,
International Baccalaureate) are offered in conjunction with
internships and professional certificates.
Table 3.1
Career Clusters
1. Agriculture and Natural Sciences
2. Arts, Media & Communications
3. Business and Finance
4. Construction and Development
5. Health and Medical Sciences
6. Hospitality and Tourism
7. Public Service
8. Sales, Service, and Entrepreneurship
9. Technology and Manufacturing
10. Transportation
The Proposed Career Academy Cluster (see Table 3.2) plan
has been integrated into the ‘small learning communities’
model used in many of the high schools. These small learning
communities will require facilities to be designed with related
classrooms, administrative and instructional support, and
student services near the students and teachers in each
academy. The academic focus that has been provided by the
Office of Academic Services for high schools is a strong guide
for facilities planning.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
29
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Proposed Career Academic Clusters
QUAD
SCHOOL
NW
NW
NW
NW
Coolidge
Cardozo
Roosevelt
Wilson
NE
NE
NE
Dunbar
Spingarn/Phelps
Eastern
SE
SE
SE
Woodson
Anacostia
Ballou
NW
NW
NW
NW
NW
Banneker
Bell
Ellington
MM Washington
School w/o Walls
Mamie D. Lee
NE
NE
Luke C. Moore
McKinley
Oak Hill
Friendship Edison
New School
Booker T. Washington
IDEA
Washington MST
1
2
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
x
6
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
3. Business, Finance & Marketing
Accounting & Finance/Business Administration &
Management/Marketing
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6. Hospitality & Tourism
Culinary Arts/Food Services Management/Hospitality/
Travel & Tourism
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7. Human Services
Teacher & Counselor Education/Child Care & Development/
Cosmotology & Barbering
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4. Construction & Design
Carpentry/Electricity/Heating-Ventilation-Air Cond.(HVAC)/
Architecture & Design
5. Health, Wellness & Science
Allied Health/Medical Sciences/Biotechnology
x
x
KEY TO CAREER CLUSTERS
1. Agriculture & Natural Resources
Environmental Science/Animal Science/Horticulture &
Lanscape Design
2. Art, Media & Communications
Media & Communications/Performing Arts/Visual Arts
and Electronic-Print Communication.
x
x
x
x
10
x
x
x
x
x
x
9
x
x
x
8
x
x
x
x
x
x
7
x
x
x
x
5
x
x
x
Table 3.2
x
x
8. Public Service
Law & Public Policy/Protective Services/Criminal Justice
Cosmotology & Barbering
9. Technology, Engineering & Manufacturing
Web Developer/Support & Services/Networking/Interactive Media/
Programming & Software Development/Electronics & Robotics/
10. Transportation
Aerospace & Aviation/Auto Technology/Auto Body/Planning,
Logistics & Operations
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
30
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Transitioning the Ninth Grades
The grouping of students into small learning communities, the
adoption of articulated course sequences in academic and
career disciplines, and the DCPS High School Graduation
Plan require that students be fully integrated into high school
at the 9th grade level. The current mixture of 9th grade in high
schools for some students and in junior high schools for others
does not support the academic models DCPS is implementing.
Additionally, n
i the high schools setting, the 9th graders are
exposed to advanced courses, receive more consistent
counseling, and have higher expectations.
DCPS is recommending that all 9th grades be transitioned from
junior high schools to high schools as the reform model is
implemented over the next few years. This recommendation
met with general, but not universal approval during the three
rounds of public meetings in the spring of 2003. Critical
leadership from the Office of the Chief Academic Officer and
the Office of Facilities Management is needed to provide
DCPS families with a clear plan to meet the needs of students
during this transition.
The DCPS facilities, with public input, will develop a facilities
plan in the spring of 2004 to transition all 9th graders to Senior
High Schools to be submitted to the Superintendent for School
Board approval.
High School Opportunities
There are ongoing high school facility modernizations that will
introduce new physical environments for the programmatic
initiatives if capital funding is provided.
McKinley Technology High School is scheduled to open in
September, 2004. A renovated Bell Multi-cultural and Lincoln
Middle School will open in September 2006. A modernized
Woodson High School is scheduled to open in September
2007. Anacostia and Cardozo Senior High Schools are in the
design phase of modernization.
Another opportunity is available through modernization of
School Without Walls High School. Exploratory conversations
are taking place with George Washington University regarding
a public-public partnership. School Without Walls is a Tier 3
project and therefore is currently unfunded for planning,
design, or construction. It is hoped that the partnership with
George Washington University is fruitful and that the impact
will be both in capital development and program
enhancements.
Middle and Junior High Schools
DCPS operates a variety of grade configurations for the middle
school grades - junior high schools configured as Grades 7-9,
middle schools configured for Grades 6-8, some elementary
schools that have 6th grades and extended elementary schools
that go to 8th grade. This variety of configurations reflects the
historical accumulation of local decisions. As part of the 2000
Facilities Master Plan process, four communities expressed a
desire to move toward consistent grade organizations of PK5/6-8/9-12. DCPS staff believes that the choice of grade
configurations should be driven by the educational needs of
the students and staff. The role of the facilities plan is to
ensure that the buildings are prepared to support the
academic programs.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
31
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Middle and Junior High Schools (continued)
Special Education
DCPS acknowledges the importance of a coherent philosophy
of instruction and grade configuration for the middle school
years in order to ensure education equity, allow for common
professional development, and provide clarity for the public.
Therefore, DCPS will undertake a study concerning the
placement of 6th grade students. This study would examine
whether DCPS will continue the practice of having some 6th
grades at elementary schools and some at middle schools or if
all 6th grades should be placed at middle schools. This study
should focus on the academic performance of students in each
of configurations and the preparation of students for academic
success. The impact of facility usage will be examined as a
secondary measure. This study should be completed and
forwarded to the Superintendent and School Board for a
decision in Spring 2004.
One of the roles of the middle years education is to prepare
students to be successful in high school. In support of this
mission the Office of Career and Technical Education is
planning and installing Career Exploration Laboratories for
students in grades 6-8. With the career pathway courses
commencing in the 9th grade, it is important for students to
have exposure to the full spectrum of opportunities prior to
selecting a high school. The Career Exploration Laboratories
will provide students with experiences in all ten Career
Clusters.
These experiences, integrated with role of
counselors, will prepare students to select a neighborhood or
citywide high school that matches their academic and career
interests.
Starting with the 2002-03 school year, the DCPS Office of
Special Education has embarked on a five-year facilities plan
to expand capacity to serve students currently in private
schools and non-DCPS public placements. This plan will
result in the facilities and programmatic support needed to
have DCPS provide special education services in the student's
home school or other local DCPS facility. The goal is to serve
85% of students with disabilities in the neighborhoods where
they live, utilizing an additional 1,600 seats by the 2006-07
school year. Declining total enrollment should mean a decline
in special education enrollment. However, bringing special
education students back from non-public placements and
providing programs initially will mean making more facilities
ready to receive their special education population. Making a
commitment to facilities modifications can save dollars that
would be used for private placement tuition, transportation and
legal fees.
The placement of special education programs in neighborhood
schools also will allow students to attend schools close to
home and will maximize the opportunity for special education
student inclusion. Additionally, as transportation costs of
special education students to other jurisdictions are reduced,
resources will be made available to support special education
services, academic programs, facilities maintenance, and
other operating expenses that impact the quality of education.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
32
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
The new Five Year Special Education Plan will provide a
continuum of services that include:
§ part-time services (in-classroom or resource rooms)
§ self-contained classrooms in the home school
§ self-contained classrooms in cluster settings
(central to a group of schools)
§ self-contained classrooms in centers
§ special schools
The Office of Facilities Management has been assisting the
Office of Special Education in identifying appropriate space
within DCPS facilities and renovating spaces as needed. For
the 2003-04 school year, more than 500 new seats were made
available at the following schools:
Additional program placements will occur annually until the
target of 85% of the DCPS special education population is
served within DCPS facilities. One of the largest populations
to reestablish in DCPS schools will be students with emotional
disabilities. The current plan is to build a minimum of four
classrooms for a satellite program at every high school, two
classrooms for satellite programs at fifteen middle schools,
and two classrooms for satellite programs at ten elementary
schools.
Another large population to reestablish in DCPS public schools
is middle and high school learning disabled and emotionally
disabled students. Planning considerations include opening or
contracting with a public charter school to serve students in
this age range.
Area A: Birney ES, Moten Center, PR Harris EC
Area C: Houston ES, Kelly Miller MS, Shadd ES
Area D: Amidon ES, Ludlow-Taylor ES, Minor ES, Payne ES,
Tyler ES, Watkins ES, JO Wilson ES, Stuart-Hobson
MS, Eastern SHS, Prospect LC
Area E: Bunker Hill ES, Burroughs ES, Emery ES, Langdon
ES, Webb ES, Browne Center
Area F: Cleveland ES, Gage Eckington ES, Garnet-Patterson
MS, Garrison ES, Meyer ES, Park View ES, Seaton
ES, Tubman ES
Area G: Janney ES, Key ES, Lafayette ES, Stoddert ES,
Hardy MS, Wilson SHS
Area H: Barnard ES, Roosevelt SHS
Map 3.6 shows future programs locations within each planning
area. As specific special education program needs are
determined and matched with facility capacity and program
appropriateness, this information will be made available to the
public.
Early Childhood and Pre-Kindergarten
It is anticipated that DCPS will continue to expand the
availability of early childhood and Pre-Kindergarten programs
in the District to ensure universal access to these programs.
Studies of space needs and availability at each elementary
school are conducted on an annual basis to ensure that needs
are being addressed. The delivery of these programs is being
coordinated with other District social service agencies under
the Office of Early Childhood Education to provide wraparound services to the children and families.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
33
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
MAP 3.1
The space available to deliver early childhood and PreKindergarten programs at elementary schools could be
expanded if 6th grade programs were to be placed at middle
schools. This should be examined as part of the study
recommended in the Middle and Junior High School section
above.
The facilities needs for delivering early childhood programs are
primarily in the areas of playgrounds and restroom facilities.
The needs for early childhood and Pre-kindergarten students
are distinct from the older elementary students. Space
constraints in some facilities and site limitations will impact the
cost and/or feasibility of providing differentiated facilities for
these populations. It is recommended that the annual review
of individual school capacities be consolidated into a summary
of needs for the early childhood and Pre-Kindergarten distinct
from the elementary grades while recognizing that these
programs are co-located.
Summary
The Facility Master Plan is designed to provide optimal
learning environments for all students in DCPS. The evolving
needs and programmatic initiatives require that facility usage
be adapted to support the desired educational environment. A
continued relationship of collaboration between the Office of
Facilities Management, the Office of the Chief Academic
Officer, and the Office of Divisional Superintendents will
ensure that students, teachers and principals are provided with
facilities appropriate to the educational mission of DCPS.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
34
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
MAP 3.2
MAP 3.3
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
35
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
MAP 3.4
MAP 3.5
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
36
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
MAP 3.6
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
37
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Chapter 4
Charter Schools
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Chapter 4
Charter Schools
that the charter enrollment may continue to grow but at a
slower rate –
Charter schools are publicly funded schools typically
organized as non-profit corporations and managed by an
independent Board of Trustees. Because charter schools are
free to all District students, they provide an accessible
alternative to the traditional public school – in a public school.
This is a new chapter in the DCPS facilities p lan intending to
highlight the facilities needs of public charters schools and to
outline a process for including charter schools in future
planning considerations.
In the District of Columbia, schools can be chartered through
the DC Public Charter School Board or the District of Columbia
Board of Education. Since 1997, 41 schools have received
charters (six are no longer operating). The DC Charter School
law allows up to 20 new charter schools to be approved
annually. However, far fewer applicants are approved each
year. In 2003, three new charter schools opened.
Between 1998 and 2000, charter school enrollment grew
substantially, more than offsetting the decline in DCPS
enrollment. In 2002-03, approximately 11,600 students were
enrolled in 35 charter schools on 38 campuses. These
schools have charter capacity that would allow growth of up to
7,000 additional students. However, not all of the schools
indicate that they have the physical space or the financial
capacity to accommodate the growth at this time. It is difficult
to forecast charter school enrollment with only limited
enrollment history. For planning purposes, estimates assume
on average 400-500 students annually (from new schools and
existing school build-out) for the next five to seven years.
Table 4.1
Actual and Projected Charter School Enrollment
through 2010
20000
Actual
Projected
15000
10000
5000
0
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Background
Charter schools operate in a quasi-market setting competing
for students with each other, private schools, and the local
school district. Many charter schools have a specific focus
such as the arts or technology or offer unique teaching
methods such as Montessori or Expeditionary Learning
Outward Bound©. Some schools serve students with
disabilities. Because of the overall stabilizing effect on public
school enrollment, the charters appear to have attracted
students from within DCPS as well as from private and home
school settings.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
39
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Table 4.2 provides information about the existing charter
schools, their enrollment, grades, capacity, special focus, and
facilities status.
District of Columbia Charter Schools
Table 4.2
Grades
PK-6
2002
Enrollment
617
Barbara Jordan
5-8
52
Booker T. Washington
9-12
235
Capital City
Carlos Rosario International
Cesar Chavez for Public Policy
Children’s Studio School of the
Arts and Humanities
PK-8
Adult
9-12
181
800
250
PK-6
113
144
Community Academy (CAPCS)
PK-8
475
550
D.C. Preparatory Academy
Eagle Academy
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community
Freedom
Friendship-Edison Blow-Pierce
Junior Academy
Friendship-Edison C.G.
Woodson Senior Academy
Friendship-Edison Chamberlain
Friendship-Edison Woodridge
4-8
PS-K
0
0
250
116
K-6
208
6-8
9-12
K-5
K-5
Schools
Arts & Technology Academy
Projected
(max cap)
Special Focus
650
Performing and communication arts
Character, leadership, political
500
acuity, and oration skills
Construction and building trades /
300
GED
Expeditionary Learning Outward
400
Bound©
600
ESL/GED preparation-Citizenship
240
Leadership and civic awareness
DCPS
or
Surplus
School
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
250
Arts in education
Educational, social, and economic
needs of children and families
Academic achievement,
professional
success, and civic leadership
Activity-oriented academics
Foreign language and community
service
739
762
College preparation curriculum
Yes
918
837
404
980
837
420
College preparation curriculum
College preparation curriculum
College preparation curriculum
Yes
Yes
Yes
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
Indicates
Facilities
Needs
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
40
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Schools
Howard Road Academy
Hyde Leadership Academy
Ideal Academy
Integrated Design and
Electronics Academy (IDEA)
Jos-Arz Academy
Kamit Institute for Magnificent
Achievers (KIMA)
Grades
K-12
2002
Enrollment
525
Projected
(max cap)
Special Focus
1270
Research-based direct instruction
“Character First” college
700
preparation
350
Holistic, African-centered education
K-12
PK-8
601
193
7-12
9-12
225
54
300
200
9-12
76
150
KIPP DC/Key Academy
Latin American Montessori
Bilingual (LAMB)
Marriott Hospitality
5-8
160
320
PS-6
9-12
0
109
144
220
Maya Angelou See Forever #1
9-12
85
100
9-12
PK-12
0
464
100
1000
9-12
0
224
(Maya Angelou See Forever #2)
Meridian
Mechanical Industrial Technical
(MIT)
New School for Enterprise and
Development
Next Step / El Proximo Paso
Options
9-12
9-12
339
65
450
100
5-8
141
175
Self-discipline, leadership, JROTC
Emotional and behavioral problems
Literary arts, social/cultural
research, and outdoor education
Academic, intellectual, and
character skills
Spanish-English dual language
immersion, Montessori environment
Careers in the hospitality industry
Academics with workplace
experience
Parentheses indicates negotiations
are not yet finalized for 2nd location
Intense individual attention
DCPS
or
Surplus
School
Indicates
Facilities
Needs
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cooperative education and workstudy programs
ESL and GED programs
Expeditionary Learning Outward
Bound©
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
Yes
Yes*
41
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Schools
Paul Junior High
Roots
Grades
7-9
2002
Enrollment
585
1-8
61
Sasha Bruce
6-12
86
School for Arts in Learning
(SAIL)
K-5
117
School of Educational Evolution
and Development (SEED)
7-12
230
Southeast Academy of
Scholastic Excellence
K-adult
657
Thurgood Marshall Academy
9-12
102
Tree of Life Community
K-4
133
Tri-Community
PK-12
22
Village Learning Center
PK-12
392
Washington Math, Science, and
Technology
9-12
294
Total
11,600
* New space in surplus schools under negotiation.
Projected
(max cap)
Special Focus
730
Arts and technology
Roots Ac tivity Learning Center
Model
60
Expeditionary Learning Outward
250
Bound©
145
DCPS
or
Surplus
School
Yes
Indicates
Facilities
Needs
Yes*
Yes
240
Arts-based education
Standards-based curriculum and
state of the art technology
1725
400
300
1084
300
Individual Education Plans
Law, democracy, and human rights
Reading and family literacy
Literacy and mathematics
Whole child education
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
420
18,020
Math and science
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
Yes
Yes
Yes
42
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
planning to move into surplus school space (Military Road and
Kingsman) during the next year.
New Laws
In the last three years, the city has made several changes to
the laws governing DCPS’s relationship with the charter
schools.
§ The city modified the Code (Section 38-18) on Public
School Facilities Governing the Reuse of Surplus
School Space by designating charter schools as having
‘first preference’ for the use of excess space, superceding the city departments.
§ The city assigned to DCPS the responsibility of
developing a co-location plan with charter schools.
§ There is current pending legislation that requires a
long-range facilities plan be developed for charter
schools.
These changes point to a greater role for DCPS in planning for
charter school facilities.
Although charter schools operate in a wide range of facilities,
they indicate a preference for buildings that have been
designed as schools because they provide adequately sized
classrooms, cafeterias, physical education space (indoor and
outdoor), and administration space. Most schools prefer not to
share space with another school that operates under a
different philosophy.
DEVELOPING A NEW PLAN
The goal of a facilities plan for charter schools would be to
identify opportunities in DCPS facilities that may address the
facilities needs of the charter schools. To this end, a task
force is being formed comprised of DCPS Facilities
Department staff, representatives of the two chartering boards,
and representatives of the public charter schools.
Current Status
This task force will:
Funding for charter schools is based on the average ‘per
student’ funding for DCPS. This allocation includes funding for
facilities that provides for rent (or mortgage) and utilities.
However, many charter schools are struggling to secure
adequate and/or appropriate space for their programs.
•
Twenty-five charter schools have indicated that they are
seeking additional and/or different space. Currently, eleven
charter schools are housed in surplused public school
buildings. Three of those schools, however, are in ‘incubator
space’ at the closed Rabaut School and need to find a
permanent facility in the future. Three additional schools are
•
•
•
Develop criteria for the identification of school buildings,
parts of school buildings, and land that are excess to
DCPS needs and suitable for use by the public charter
schools.
Identify excess property using these criteria.
Develop a mechanism by which the principal’s cooperation
can be sought where part of a school building is identified
as excess.
Determine lease rates and terms that are reasonable in
light of charter school budgets and the requirements of
lenders.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
43
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
•
•
•
Develop a process by which public charter schools can bid
to use identified space made available to them by the
Board of Education.
Publicize to the public charter schools the availability of
identified spaces and the particulars of the bidding
process.
Monitor the bidding process to ensure that acquisitions are
not unnecessarily delayed.
This task force will develop a working document that will
provide a co-location plan per the city regulation.
Recommendations
An analysis of the DCPS inventory and enrollment
projections for the next six years suggests that there are
schools throughout the district that are or will be significantly
underutilized. See Tables in Chapter 6 for school by school
space availability. If this space is not needed for other DCPS
activities (swing space or special education programs), it
should be made available for other public schools’ use.
In order for co-location to work with minimal impact on DCPS
programs and Charter School programs there should be
approximately 250 spaces available in the building or
approximately 13 classrooms. In addition to the amount of
space available, there needs to be separate entrances and
admin areas. Ideally, for co-location there should be an entire
wing of the building or floor that can be separated so that the
students and staff are independent. If sharing of core spaces
is necessary, such as media centers and gymnasiums, then
there should be a separate administrator that schedules both
the DCPS program and the Charter School program use of the
shared space.
Table 4.4 contains DCPS operating schools with
approximately 250 or more spaces available.
Table 4.4
School
Ferebee-Hope
Fletcher-Johnson
Hendley
Ron Brown
Hart
Browne
Eliot
Anacostia
Ballou
Eastern
Woodson
Excess Capacity in
2003-04
245
364
247
526
327
428
313
348
325
427
286
If the plan to move all ninth graders into high schools is
approved, then Anacostia, Ballou, and Woodson would likely
come off this list. The schools with space for longer-term colocation are shown in table 4.5.
Table 4.5
School
Ferebee-Hope
Fletcher-Johnson
Hendley
Ron Brown
Hart
Browne
Eliot
Eastern
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
Several possible options exist for colocation with the charter school
community:
§
Designating a wing or floor of
a currently operating school
§
Leasing a facility not currently
in use as the result of the
modernization program (Old
Miner Elementary)
44
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
§
Collaborating with a charter school to modernize or
renovate space in excess of what is needed for the
existing program (Sousa Middle School and McKinley
Science and Technology School)
§
Consolidating schools and leasing the subsequently
closed facility (MM Washington or Phelps).
SUMMARY
DCPS has many large facilities that may be suitable for colocation; however, the logistics of co-location are often difficult
to negotiate. Ideally, all schools – charters and DCPS – would
operate in a building sized to their enrollment. This Plan
identifies several planning studies to occur during the next two
years that may result in the consolidation of schools. DCPS
Facilities Staff recommends that the identification of facilities
for charter schools be coordinated with these studies. Map 4.1
shows the current locations of charter schools.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
45
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Chapter 5
Capital Funding and Implementation
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Chapter 5
Capital Funding and Implementation
Background
The adopted Facilities Master Plan recommended a 15-year
capital program designed to create a New Generation of
Schools for the District of Columbia. In March of 2001, the
new Board of Education expressed support for the Plan. Each
of the last three years since adoption, DCPS has requested
the funding necessary to implement the Plan.
Full funding for the Facilities Master Plan (15 years) will
require approximately $200-300 million per year for
modernizations alone. Although the city has supported the
school construction program for the last three years at record
levels, the funding approved for the next six years falls far
short of the commitment needed to continue the program.
Only the first 22 schools have been funded through 2004/5.
The FY 2004 – 2009 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) does
not include funds for FY 2008-2009.
This chapter provides an update on the progress to date, the
challenges for continued implementation, and a financial plan
that supports the program.
Building a Balanced Facilities Plan
The District of Columbia Public Schools operates 147 schools.
The average DC Public School building first opened its doors
more than 65 years ago. Several schools are housed in
facilities that are over 100 years old. The accumulation of
aging structures and deferred maintenance has created many
emergencies during the last ten years – failing boilers,
deteriorating walls, inoperable windows, leaking roofs, etc.
There is much that must be done in the next ten years to make
all of the District’s buildings code compliant and consistently
operational.
Effectively addressing the significant backlog of facilities
issues facing nearly every District school and at the same time
building a new generation of forward looking, technologically
capable schools will require a multi-faceted funding strategy.
Both the capital and operating budgets must be focused on a
plan that is complementary and broad-based.
Modernizations (capital) – Comprehensive renovations and
upgrades of older facilities will help DCPS to meet ‘new
school’ standards. When cost effective and educationally
sound, DCPS should recommend buildings for replacement.
This program includes 6-10 schools each year for the next 1520 years.
Component Replacements (capital) – The complete
replacement of a major building system that has reached the
end of its useful life – boilers, chillers, roofs, windows, etc.
This program will address the needs of schools not scheduled
for modernization during the early years of the program and
life cycle replacements in future years
Small Capital Projects (capital) – Minor remodeling or
equipment upgrades to make the best use of available space
and create educationally effective school environments –
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
47
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
science lab upgrades, open space enclosures, special
education suite modifications, etc. This program allows the
District to respond to changing programs and enrollment shifts.
Deferred Maintenance Improvements (operating) – This is
both a capital and an operations responsibility.
A
Comprehensive Maintenance Plan has been developed to
address a package of critical deferred maintenance projects at
schools not identified for early modernizations. Funding for the
deferred maintenance improvements is part of the request in
the Operating Budget. The need will be greater in the early
years and decline as modernization projects are completed
and a regular program of maintenance replaces the need for
emergency actions.
Sustaining and Preventative Maintenance Program
(operating) – The planned, regular maintenance of aging
systems and compliance with federal mandates must be part
of a balanced, responsible facilities plan. As the need to
address deferred maintenance declines, funds will be used to
support a program of sustaining maintenance. Initially, health
and safety issues will receive priority attention.
Modernizations
The original Facilities Master Plan called for the modernization
of 10 schools a year for the next 15 years. It proposed “tiers”
for every year beginning in FY 2001, selecting a school from
each of eight planning areas plus high schools prioritized in a
separate ranking process. Those schools with FY 2001-2002
funding are referred to as Tier 0. Some of those schools are
completed. All Tier 1 schools are in design or ready for bid.
All Tier 2 schools have begun the planning process.
The Board of Education has committed to the ranking
identified for schools in Tier 2-4. Those schools were
identified by planning area community committees. Originally,
each tier represented one year in the Capital Improvement
Program and therefore schools did not need to be prioritized
within tiers. Insufficient funding required that some schools be
delayed into the next fiscal year. To rank schools within tiers
beginning with Tier 2, staff used the physical condition
evaluations that in part formed the basis for the original
Facilities Master Plan (FMP).
Facilities Condition Assessment
In 1998, the Corps of Engineers evaluated the physical
condition of hundreds of building components in every DCPS
facility. For the original Master Plan, those assessments were
‘normalized’ and the evaluations summarized into five basic
building components prioritized as follows:
§ Life safety and building security
§ Building shell and primary systems
§ Interior finishes and secondary systems
§ Supplemental systems
§ Non-critical systems
The Corps rated the systems on a 0 –1.0 scale with 0- .25
assigned to systems in relatively good condition and a ranking
of .50 to 1.0 given to systems that were in poor condition.
Every school was then given an FCI (Facilities Condition
Index) score that was a comparison of the cost to correct
identified deficiencies vs. the current replacement value - the
higher the score the worse the condition of the facility. For this
Plan, FCI scores have been adjusted for expenditures
between 1999-2003.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
48
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
The FCI scores have been used to rank schools within Tiers 2
and 3.
§
Exceptions to the proposed ranking would include:
§
§
§
A public-private partnership that will contribute funding with
special time constraints
Table 5.1
School
Tier
Terrell, R. H. JHS
Turner ES
Deal JHS
MacFarland MS
Anacostia HS
Cardozo HS
Kramer MS
Ross ES
Slowe ES
Smothers ES
Stanton ES
Raymond ES
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
School without Walls
Draper ES
Bowen ES
Hearst ES
C.W. Harris ES
Browne JHS
Shaw MS
Roosevelt HS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Comment
Delay one year pending
planning study
Public-Private Partnership
Possibilities
§
A grant or other private donation with special time
constraints
Consolidation and/or closure
Swing space constraints or opportunities
Scheduling to include one high school project per year
Component Replacements
When building components reach the end of their useful life
they require more routine maintenance, are more costly to
operate, and occasionally fail – creating damage and/or
interruption to the school environment.
A planned
replacement program is a responsible and cost effective
solution to the pattern of emergencies that have plagued
DCPS for the last 10 years. A component replacement
program, when combined with an aggressive modernization
program, should be balanced and regularly funded. Planned
replacements (See Appendix) are scheduled in the following
categories:
• Window Replacements
• Boiler Replacements
• School Yard Improvements
• HVAC Improvements
• Roof Replacements
• Security Improvements
Mandates
Asbestos abatement and modifications for the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) continue to be costly programs for
DCPS. Prescribed plans for these programs alone could
absorb more than $25 million annually. These plans approach
the systemic problem of operating older school buildings in a
random fashion. The current CIP is focusing instead on
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
49
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
addressing these problems through major modernizations.
However, some projects must be completed at schools not
proposed in the early years of the program. The staff is
continuing to explore ways to address safety concerns in a
cost effective and least intrusive fashion. Current priorities
are:
• Replacement of underground storage tanks
• Compliance with AHERA (Asbestos) Plan
• Transitional Action Plan for ADA improvements was
prepared at the District’s request. The Plan identifies
$81,062,383 in improvements needed to fully meet
ADA standards at every school. Since it is possible
that improvements made in the next several years at
some schools scheduled for modernization or
replacement could be lost, staff proposes a cautious
approach to making improvements. It is necessary to
begin the Transitional Action Plan for ADA using the
following priorities:
o
o
o
o
Schedule special schools for modernization;
Address ADA modifications at schools with unique
programs so that no child is excluded from
attending the program;
Address ADA modifications to insure a continuum
of accessible schools (elementary, middle and
high) in each planning area; and
Continue to address special requests to
accommodate individual schools.
These programs will be larger in the early years of the CIP
with the expectation that the modernization program will
minimize future requirements.
Small Capital Projects
The following small capital projects have been identified for FY
2004. Staff anticipates that similar projects will be identified
annually.
• Continued preparation of facilities to accommodate
Special Education home school initiative
• Projects at select high schools not scheduled for
modernization in the next 5 years
• Open space enclosure (develop plan and scope)
• Early Childhood classroom improvements
• Technology improvements
• Transformation schools
Administrative Space
In addition to planning for educational facilities, DCPS is
considering options for improving the efficiency or
effectiveness of facilities for administration and operations.
Cost savings and site improvements can potentially be
achieved by moving into owned vs. leased space. Below are
the recommendations for these functions.
Central
Recommend a study of central administrative space
needs and explore options that would enable cost
savings by being in owned vs. leased space; space
needs will include housing for special education staff
Maintenance
Identify options for the relocation of the maintenance
facility at the Kramer Annex.
Transportation
Develop a plan for consolidation of transportation lots.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
50
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Summary
DCPS is committed to maintaining a balanced capital program that addresses immediate and long-term needs for all DCPS school
facilities. DCPS is also committed to addressing the physical plan and educational adequacy of each building in its inventory. If the
Capital program is to be ultimately successful, it will require a detailed, financial commitment from the District’s governmental and
public stakeholders in Washington D.C. as well as proper project management from
MINER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
A New DCPS School in N.E. Washington D.C.
KEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
A New DCPS School in N.W. Washington D.C.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
51
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Building a Fiscally Responsible Plan
Prior to 1973, the federal government built and maintained the
DC Public Schools – nearly every school in the District. Since
1973, funds have been locally committed by the city. A recent
exception occurred in 1997, when $60 million was provided
through federal sources (Sallie Mae and Connie Lee).
Beginning in the late 1970’s, both declining population and
lower tax revenues lead to less expenditure on public school
buildings. Over the past 10 years, funding for the DCPS capital
program has not been stable or sufficient, ranging from $0 in
1996 to $92.2 million in 1997 and $222 million in 2003.
School districts throughout the country rely on a variety of
revenue sources to fund school construction. In neighboring
Maryland school districts, the state funds 50-80% of school
capital projects while the local government assumes the
remaining portion. In Virginia, school districts have the
authority to approach the voters directly with referendums and
supplements to local government funding. In the State of
Florida, schools receive funding directly through property taxes
which can be used to leverage borrowing capacity. DCPS has
no state government to supplement local funding and no
authority independent of the District Government to issue debt
to fill that gap. Even the District Government, which can issue
general obligation debt (the lowest-cost debt), can only do so
up to a certain limit. To fully support the Master Facilities Plan,
the District Government would have to more than exceed its
remaining general obligation debt capacity. Thus, DCPS must
rely on a mosaic of potential funding sources to meet the
financial needs of the Master Facilities Plan.
There is tremendous pressure to scale back the DCPS
Facilities Capital Plan to match the City’s constrained fiscal
capacity. However, DCPS believes that the implementation of
the Master Plan requires the commitment and cooperation of
the DC Government, Congress, and the private sector. It
proposes that there is a way to fully fund the rebuilding of the
schools through a combination of cost savings and increased
revenue. In an effort to launch a conversation about
alternative funding, DCPS proposes the following
combination of revenue sources.
Full Funding Total Expenditures
The previous Master Plan and Capital Improvement Program
assumed the modernization of 10 schools per year. It also
assumed the cost of modernizations to be a factor of total
projected capacity multiplied by a required standard, minimum
square feet per student and an average construction cost per
square foot.
Based on these factors, the total cost of the modernization
program will be approximately $3.5 billion over the life of the
Plan. DCPS is proposing in this Master Plan that annual
expenditures average $280 million for modernizations,
component replacements, small capital projects, and
mandates over the next 10 years. Following that, the
expenditures decline to $150 million as the high school
modernizations are completed and the need for component
replacements declines. This assumes 6-8 modernizations per
year and the extension of the timeframe for the program to a
20-year period (18 years remaining).
DCPS is proposing a Financing Plan that will fill the funding
gap that exists between the Capital Improvements Program
and currently identified funding sources. Comprehensive
Financing Plan – The Mosaic
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
52
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
The $3.5 billion financing plan would consists of the following basic elements:
A. Annual Capital Funding from the City ($100 million x 20 years)
B. Certificates of Participation (repaid with special tax)
C. Supplemental Congressional Appropriation
($70 million x 10 years)
D. Public-Private Partnerships
E. Donations and Grants
F. Energy Conservation Improvements (offsets)
G. QZAB’s
TOTAL
*Based on 10 year projections
-
$2,000,000,000
$ 700,000,000*
-
$ 700,000,000*
$ 60,000,000**
$ 20,000,000**
$ (20,000,000)**
$ 20,000,000*
$3,500,000,000
** Based on 20 year projections
A. Annual Capital Funding (2,000,000,000)
The District of Columbia Government has indicated that there
is available an average debt capacity of $300 million annually
over the next six years. Based on a settlement with Parents
United, DCPS should receive a minimum of 27.5% of the total
or approximately $83 million annually. However, based on the
assumption that the city strongly supports improvements to the
public school infrastructure, this financing plan assumes that
DCPS will receive 33% of the total or $100 million annually ($2
billion over the life of the plan).
B. Certificates of Participation ($700,000,000)
The Comprehensive Financing Plan includes the issuance of
$700 million of Certificates of Participation in FY 2006-12 that
would evidence interests in rent to be paid pursuant to a leasepurchase agreement. Although not “debt” per se (the rental
payments are specifically subject to annual appropriation), the
Certificates of Participation would come due and be paid like
debt. DC Government has experience with such certificates.
The rental payments would be made by a special tax levied
over the life of the Certificates. At current interest rates,
servicing $700 million in Certificates of Participation would
require a maximum allocation of $50 million per year for 20
years.
C. Dedicated Congressional Appropriation
($700,000,000)
The federal government provided to the city a tremendous
asset and a tremendous liability when it ‘willed’ the DCPS
facilities inventory to the city. In many cases, the schools were
already aging, in poor repair, and in need of modernization.
Without the benefit of a state government to collect and
redistribute funding through property and sale taxes, the city is
unable to close the gap between critically needed
modernizations and repairs and available funding.
Congress and the current federal administration have made
education one of their top domestic priorities.
The
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
53
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Comprehensive Financing Plan calls for a commitment of $700
million in appropriations from the federal government to bring
the DC schools into the 21st century. Given the annual levels
of funding required to support the Master Facilities Plan, it is
proposed that these funds be phased over 5 years beginning
in FY 06.
D.
Public-Private Partnerships ($60,000,000)
The $11 million Oyster Elementary School project in Ward 3
demonstrated the willingness and ability of the private sector
to assist in addressing the facilities needs of our Public
Schools. The replication of such initiatives is not only possible
but could prove a critical component in our effort to more
broadly distribute the costs of the Master Facilities Plan among
the District’s education stakeholders.
The following initiatives, aimed at increasing public-private
participation in developing our schools may help to offset the
need to raise revenue through other means.
• School-Without-Walls
• Van Ness and Turner ES (Hope VI projects)
• Other sites with potential opportunities include Green
and Janney ES, Hine and Shaw MS, and Old Miner
ES
All partnerships require on-going community involvement and
commitment if they are to be successful.
In addition to those potential partnerships already identified, a
more deliberate, systematic effort to develop public-private
partnerships could greatly offset the need to raise public
revenue or incur additional debt in support of the
modernization program. As a first step, DCPS intends to
carefully scrutinize its current inventory of school buildings and
sites in an effort to identify those facilities that pose significant
joint development opportunities.
E.
Donations and Grants ($20,000,000)
Demonstrating the potential for philanthropic support of the
DCPS modernization program, private donations or
commitments in the amount of $3 million have already been
received for the Lincoln Middle School project. Over a tenyear construction schedule, $20 million in private donations
and grants to help finance the program appears to be a
realistic goal. The DC Public Schools administration has
expressed its commitment to this effort and is prepared to
invest significant effort to raise these funds.
F.
Energy Conservation Improvements ($20,000,000)
DCPS is currently investigating the potential benefits of
introducing energy conserving control and other technologies
at its sites. We are also exploring the introduction of a pilot
conservation training program at some of our schools that
would help educate our students, teachers and staffs in the
benefits and methods of building based conservation efforts.
In addition to those efforts specifically focused on energy
conservation, the current building modernization program itself
will result in decreased energy and operations/maintenance
costs. In a very real sense, building renovations resulting in
energy savings help to finance themselves through heating,
cooling and other cost savings that can often equal or exceed
the initial cost of modernization.
The Comprehensive
Financing Plan calls for energy conservation improvements,
which have the potential to realize energy cost savings in the
amount of $20 million over the life of the plan.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
54
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
G.
Quality Zone Academy Bonds (QZAB’S)
QZAB’S are bonds that are Federal Government subsidies,
which allow bondholders to receive tax credits that are equal
to the interest that states and communities would pay holders
of taxable bonds.
DCPS, as the eligible Local Education Agency (LEA) is
requesting the District of Columbia to allocate authority to
issue QZAB’S that would provide additional resources for
improving school facilities and instruction. The revenue would
specifically be used to augment existing renovation efforts at
existing and proposed DCPS school facilities.
H.
Offsets
Although not actual revenue, DCPS is considering ways to
offset capital expenditures with operating savings through
possible school consolidations, reduced special education
costs, and shared building use.
Additionally, facilities
staffsconstantly review ways to reduce construction costs
through quality engineering, better design, and improved
management.
Barnard Elementary School
An example of the DCPS Facilities Master Plan
Summary
This financing plan is only one of may ways the District, the
private stakeholders, the federal government and DCPS can
join together to build better schools, better neighborhoods, and
a stronger city. It is presented in this Facilities Master Plan to
begin a discussion that focuses not on how we need to do
less, but on how we find the funding to do what is needed.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
55
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area A
# #
## ###
##
#####
###
# # ##
# # ## ####
####
##
#
##
# #
#
####
## #
# # # ####
#
#
##
## #
##
## ###
#
### ##
#
####
#
####### #
###
####
####
###
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
###
##
######
## ## ##
## ######
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
##
###
##
##
#
##
##
###
#######
### ## ########
## # ######
## ## # # #
###
######
###
#
#
#
##
##
#
##
##
## #
##
#
# # ##
###### #####
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
###
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
###
#
###
######
####
####
##
#
##
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
## #
## ##### ### ##########
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
####
# # ###
#
####
### ## # # # #
##
##
##
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
###
###
#####
##
#####
##
#
###
####
#
####
#
#
###
###
##
# ##
###
#
### #
#####
###
# #
#
###
#######
##### ## ## ########
##
#
####
###
#
########
###
### ####
##
### # ##
#####
#####
##
#
##
#### #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
###
#
########
##### #
##
######
###
######
##
#
# #####
#
#
#
####
# ###### ######
###
##
###
#
######
##### ##
#
###
###
##
### #
#####
## ## #### # ## ####
###
#####
## ## ## # ### #
##### ####
#
#
#
#
#
# # ###
##
######### #
# #
#
# ##
####
##
##
#######
###
##
#
## # #
#
#
#
# #######
### #
# # # ## # ## # #
####
####
###
########
##
#
##
###
#
##
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
###
#
#
#
#
###
### ### # #
## # # ##
#
##
# #######
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# ###
##
##
#
#######
##
# ####
#
# #
#
#######
#
###
##
####
#
# ##
######
##
## # ###
####
##
##
# ######
##
## ######
# ##
#
######
#
#
#
#
### #
#
#
#
#
#
###
####### #
### #
# # #######
##
#
## #
# ## #####
## # ##
##### #
#
###
##
#####
##
#
##
#
# #### #
#
#
##
#
## #
##
## #
###
##
#
#
#####
#
##
###
#
##
#
##
# # # ## #### ####
##
##
# ########
####
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
# ### ##### #### #
# ####
##
###
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# ##
## ##### ######### #
#
#
#
#
#
# ##
####
# #### #
##
##
# # ##
## ###
#
# ## #
# # ##
# # ###
# # ## #
#
##
##
# # # ####
#
# ####
###
##
## #
#
# ####### ###
#
## #
# #
#
##
###
##
### ####
#
#
#
#
##
## ##
# ##
###
##
# # ##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
### ######
##
#
#
# # # ######
#
###
#
#
# ### #####
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
## ###### # #### # ## #### #
## ##
##
### ###
#####
##
# ##
## # ### # #
#### ########
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
## ##
####
##
##
####
# #
##### #
#
## # # #
# #####
######
#
### #
## #
##
#####
##
### ##
#
###
###
# #
# ###
# #
######## ## #
#
## # #######
#
##
##
##
#### ####
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##### # #### #
## # #
####
#### #####
# # # # ####
## # # #
#
## ## ####### ####
#############
##
# # # # # # ##
#
#
#
###
#
##
###
#
##
#####
####
###
#####
#
#
#
#
#
#
###
#
# #
#
#
#
#
###
# #
Orr ES
#
% #
# d ES
##
### ##
$ Kramer JHS Randle Highlan
#
Anacostia SHS
#KetchamES
Savoy ES#
Birney ES#
Wilkinson ES# #
Moten ES
#
#
B Beers ES
#
# ##
##
##
#
#Stanton ES
#
Winston ES
# #####
#
#
##
Garfield ES
Johnson JHS %
#
Turner ES
MalcomX ES #
Martin Luther King ES
#Green ES
Terrell,#
M.C.
ES #
#
Ballou SHS $
#
Hart JHS %McGogney ES
Simon ES # Draper ES
A
Ferebee-Hope ES #
Hendley ES
Leckie ES
#
#
# #
Patterson W.B. ES
G
E
F
#
#
#
#
H
C
D
B
#
A
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area A
Background
The schools in Planning Area A are among the most recently
built schools in the District. The oldest school in the Planning
Area is Turner built in 1946. Thirteen schools were built after
1960. Area A has five open plan schools.
Planning Area A contains 21 schools, representing a wide
range of grade configurations to include four different
elementary school configurations, a middle school and a junior
high, one PK-8 Learning Center, and a high school.
Planning Area A Schools: Facilities Characteristics
School
Ballou HS
Hart MS
Johnson JHS
Birney ES
Draper ES
Ferebee-Hope ES
Green ES
P.R. Harris EC
Hendley ES
M.L. King ES
Leckie ES
Malcolm X ES
McGogney ES
Moten ES
Patterson ES
Savoy ES
Simon ES
M.C. Terrell ES
Turner ES
Wilkinson ES
Date Built
/Additions
1960/1970
1956/1965
1970
1950
1953/1955
1974
1965
1976
1959/1966
1971
1970
1973
1966
1955/1959/1971
Under construction
1968
1950
1977
1946/1953/1971
1976
Acreage
16.42
3.47
10.15
1.38
4.96
10.28
7.11
3.36
2.61
1.22
2.78
5.66
4.19
5.19
2.33
3.56
11.77
4.08
4.32
4.21
Current
Grades
9-12
6-8
7-9
PS-6
PS-6
PS-5
PS-6
PK-8
PS-6
PS-5
PK-6
PK-6
PS-6
PS,PK, 4-6
PK-6
PS-6
PS-5
PS-5
PK-6
PK-3
Open
Space
Historically
Significant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partial
Yes
Yes
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
Facilities
Condition
Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Good
Fair/Poor
Poor
NA
Fair
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Educational
Adequacy
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
NA
Fair
Fair/Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Table 6A-1
Comment
Tech. Project
Tier 4
Tier 1
Tier 3
Co-location
Tier 0
Tier 2
64
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area A
This would add nearly 800 students to the elementary schools if
the number of Pre-K students equals that of the kindergarteners.
Enrollment
Planning Area A’s elementary school enrollment decreased
from approximately 9,000 in 1993 to 7,200 in 2002 (20%).
During the same time period, high school enrollment also
declined by 15%.
A history of enrollment by school is
shown in Table 6A-3.
To understand enrollment patterns, it is important to
emphasize that DCPS allows students to attend schools of
their choice if space is available in the receiving school. In
Planning Area A, approximately 46% of the students choose
to attend a school other than their neighborhood school.
Schools that receive more students than they send to other
schools are net receiving schools and often signify
‘preferred schools’. Table 6A-2 shows the school resident
attending and total enrollment by school. Overall, Planning
Area A is net sending – losing 15% of its enrollment to other
planning areas.
Three factors may cause increases in enrollment in this
area – housing turnover, increases in Pre-K enrollment, and
higher retention rates in the high school.
The city is projecting thousands of new housing units to be
built on vacant and underutilized land in the Ballou area. At
the same time, there have been several redevelopment
projects where older apartments have been razed and
mixed housing is being rebuilt (for example, the Henson
Ridge Hope VI Grant Redevelopment).
The second factor that may impact enrollment in this area is
the likelihood that Pre-K will become universally available.
School
Birney ES
Draper ES
Ferebee- Hope
ES
Green ES
P.R. Harris EC
Hendley ES
M.L. King ES
Leckie ES
Malcolm X ES
McGogney ES
Moten ES
Patterson ES
Savoy ES
Simon ES
M.C. Terrell ES
Turner ES
Wilkinson ES
Hart MS
Johnson JHS
Ballou HS
TOTAL
Resident
Resident
Attending
% Resident
Attending
683
528
500
205
73%
39%
510
615
659
626
343
397
547
262
598
534
538
535
227
518
445
693
723
1318
11,299
229
289
447
344
247
205
327
184
149
276
215
307
110
331
141
417
425
791
6,139
45%
47%
68%
55%
70%
52%
60%
70%
25%
52%
40%
57%
48%
64%
32%
60%
59%
60%
54%
Table 6A-2
2003
% in
Enrollboundary
ment
495
101%
263
78%
267
402
918
349
454
315
534
398
380
305
380
364
319
484
537
557
690
1102
9,240
86%
72%
49%
99%
54%
65%
61%
46%
39%
90%
56%
84%
34%
68%
26%
75%
62%
72%
66%
Third, high school reform efforts in general and recent facilities
and programmatic changes at Ballou High School may encourage
more students to choose Ballou and encourage better retention
rates in the upper grades. This may increase high school
enrollment by 10-15% over the next 10 years.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
65
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area A
Planning Area A: Enrollment History By School
School
Birney ES
Draper ES
Ferebee-Hope ES
Green ES
Harris, P.R. EC
PK-8
Hendley ES
King, M.L. ES
Leckie ES
Malcolm X ES
McGogney ES
Moten ES
Patterson ES
Savoy ES
Simon ES
Terrell, M.C. ES
Turner ES
Wilkinson ES
Total Elementary
Johnson Jr. HS
Hart MS
Total Middle/JHS
School
Ballou HS
Ballou Stay
Total High
School
AREA TOTAL
Table 6A-3
03-04
02-03
495
529
263
312
93-94
594
528
94-95
541
547
95-96
558
532
96-97
560
528
97-98
615
496
98-99
566
448
99-00
565
407
00-01
588
372
01-02
567
332
584
378
596
374
579
392
474
371
398
415
355
402
332
413
338
457
341
507
314
411
1,049
541
599
587
583
499
331
426
475
474
396
599
577
9,220
1,020
562
662
560
631
471
403
423
455
528
416
679
647
9,515
991
572
669
566
677
470
381
427
426
549
368
677
712
9,546
1,000
549
622
560
800
489
368
387
429
530
358
661
717
9,403
857
571
563
532
825
506
319
376
498
502
344
662
720
9,199
772
608
511
502
781
427
376
401
424
491
314
579
727
8,684
687
535
485
402
755
386
387
398
445
484
271
517
662
8,131
727
552
479
410
678
397
320
381
477
528
272
506
578
8,060
793
537
476
402
556
419
352
315
451
472
287
490
519
7,816
917
405
464
377
562
434
348
326
385
406
287
513
508
7,498
349
454
315
534
398
380
305
380
364
319
484
537
433
756
392
721
402
721
319
629
471
676
515
605
501
476
505
525
560
582
646
578
690
557
1,189
1,113
1,123
948
1,147
1,120
977
1,030
1,142
1,224
1,786
-
1,534
-
1,276
-
1,060
-
1,270
-
1,137
-
1,326
-
916
-
1,029
-
964
538
1,768
12,177
1,534
12,162
1,276
11,945
1,060
11,411
1,270
11,616
1,137
10,941
1,326
10,434
916
10,006
1,029
9,987
1,502
10,224
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
267
402
918
66
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area A
Grade Level Restructuring
Consolidations
Planning Area A requested consistent grade structures and
reorganization for grades PK-5, 6-8, and 9-12. To accomplish
this request, Johnson JHS would need to send its 9th grade
students to Ballou and Anacostia high schools, and be
prepared to receive 6th grade students from its feeder schools.
DCPS is evaluating the programmatic implications for
reorganization and the timing for change.
Planning Area A has elementary school capacity for 8,475
students. In 2002, there were 7,133 students in grades PS-6
or 1,342 available seats.
Additionally, the 2000 Facilities Master Plan requested that
Wilkinson ES (Grades Pre-K – 3) and Moten ES (Grades 4 - 6)
be reorganized for Grades PK – 5. Table 6A-4 shows the
implication of these requests on enrollment. (Using 2003
enrollment as an example)
School
Current
Grades
Planned
Grades
2003
Enrollment
Anacostia HS
Ballou HS
Johnson MS
Hart MS
Birney ES
Draper ES
Green ES
Hendley ES
Leckie ES
Malcolm X ES
McGogney ES
Moten ES
Savoy ES
Turner ES
Wilkinson ES
9-12
9-12
7-9
6-8
PS-6
PS-6
PS-6
PS-6
PK-6
PK-6
PS-6
PS/4-6
PS-6
PK-6
PS-3
9-12
9-12
7-8/6-8
6-8
PS-5/6
PS-5/6
PS-5/6
PS-5/6
PK-5/6
PK-5/6
PS-5/6
PK-5/6
PS-5/6
PK-5/6
PK-5/6
638
1102
690
557
495
263
402
349
315
534
398
107
380
484
537
Table 6A-4
Projected
Enrollment
if Reorg.
712
1149
534/750
593
442
242
343
348
307
452
361
TBD
381
410
TBD
During the next six years:
§
§
§
Schools in this area may be reorganized for grades
PS-5, reducing enrollment in the elementary schools.
Enrollment overall may decline due to lower birth rates,
housing turnover, and charter school enrollment.
Enrollment may increase at some schools adjacent to
new housing developments.
Prior to the 2006 Facilities Plan Update, Facilities Planning
staff, working with the school communities, will conduct a
planning study of selected elementary schools in this area to
consider whether some schools should be consolidated. See
Chapter 2 section on Planning Studies, for information on next
steps.
Modernization
The 2000 Facilities Master Plan recommended that DCPS
modernize 10 schools annually. The community committees
that attended the planning meetings prioritized schools to be
completed in the first 4-6 years of the program. The
Committee of 21 proposed a capital program that identified
Tiers 0-4 based on the prioritized lists. Currently, most Tier 0
(Patterson ES) projects are under construction or have been
completed. Tier 1 (Birney ES) projects are completing the
planning and design phase. Tier 2 (Turner ES) projects are in
the early stages of design.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
67
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area A
As part of the modernization program, DCPS was expected to
‘right size’ the schools to match the projected enrollment,
thereby reducing the total square feet that the public would
maintain. Tables 6A-5 through 6A-7 show the proposed
capacity for each school (revised to reflect projected
enrollment) and the proposed square feet for the new or
modernized building. At the completion of the program, DCPS
hopes to be operating 800,000 fewer square feet in Area A.
Table 6A-7 shows that the total elementary capacity would be
reduced to 7,130 or nearly 1,700 seats.
See Chapter 5 for the criteria for ranking schools. The timing
for capital projects will be dependent on available funding.
Capital and Non-Capital Recommendations by School
High Schools
High Schools
Ballou High School
High Schools Total
Table 6A-5
Proposed Capacity
1,400
1,400
Proposed Action
Partial Modernization
Current Sq.
Ft.
271,300
271,300
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
268,800
268,800
Proposed
Tier
0.5
Ballou HS - Complete technology renovation project in 2004; Accept 9th Grade students from Johnson Jr. High School.
Middle Schools
Middle Schools
Hart Middle
Johnson Junior High
Middle Schools Total
Table 6A-6
Proposed Capacity
Proposed Action
600
600
1,200
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Current Sq.
Ft.
210,700
182,500
393,200
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
102,000
102,000
204,000
Proposed
Tier
4
Hart MS – Modernization Tier 4; New capacity 600.
Johnson JHS – Send 9th grade students to Ballou HS; Accept 6th Grade students from feeder schools (timing TBD).
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
68
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area A
Elementary Schools
Elementary Schools
Table 6A-7
Proposed Capacity
Birney ES
560
Draper ES
320
Ferebee-Hope ES
320
Green ES
400
P.R. Harris ES
400/600
Hendley ES
400
M.L. King ES
450
Leckie ES
400
Malcolm X
500
McGogney ES
400
Moten ES
400/50
Patterson ES
520
Savoy ES
400
Simon ES
400
M.C. Terrell ES
320
Turner ES
500
Wilkinson ES
400
Elementary Schools Total
7,730
* Co-location with special education center
Proposed Action
Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Partial Mod/Joint Use
Modernization/Replacement
Partial Modernization
Modernization/Replacement
Partial Modernization
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Partial Modernization
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Current
Sq. Ft.
86,800
54,000
193,800
77,700
348,700
73,200
65,500
65,000
110,800
67,600
99,700
65,200
64,800
66,200
112,000
77,500
144,900
1,773,400
Proposed
Sq. Ft.
81,404
48,000
48,000
60,000
170,000
60,000
67,500
60,000
75,000
60,000
67,500
81,007
60,000
60,000
48,000
75,000
60,000
1,181,411
Proposed
Tier
1
3
0
2
Elementary School Planning Study; Schools included in the study are Draper, Ferebee-Hope, Hendley, M.C. Terrell, McGogney, and
Green Elementary schools.
Birney ES – Complete Modernization 2004/5; Housed at Douglas 2004-2005.
Draper ES - Modernization Tier 3; New capacity 320.
Moten and Wilkinson ES – Reconfigure as Grades PS – 5/6; Date TBD.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
69
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area B
#
$
%
#
#
#
#
SousaJHS
#
Kimball ES#
%
%
#
#
#
DavisES
OrrES
%KramerJHS
$ AnacostiaSHS
#
# RandleHighlandES
H
# KetchamES
# BeersES
G
E
F
#
C
# StantonES
D
B
WinstonES#
# #
A
GarfieldES
#
%
#
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area B
Background
Ten of the twelve schools in Area B may have historic
resources. Their ages range from 94 years at Ketcham
Elementary, built in 1909 to 27 years at Winston Elementary,
built in 1976. The average age is 59 years. Area B has three
schools that are fully or partially open plan.
Planning Area B contains 12 schools, including two different
elementary school configurations, a middle school, one PK-8
Center, and a high school.
Planning Area B Schools: Facilities Characteristics
School
Table 6B-1
Comment
Date Built or
Modernized
Acreage
Current
Grades
Open
Space
Historically
Significant
Facilities
Condition
Educational
Adequacy
1935/1978
7.98
9-12
Partial
Yes
Poor
Fair
Tier 2
Kramer MS
1943
4.76
6-8
Yes
Poor
Fair
Tier 2
Sousa MS
1959
5.38
6-8
Yes
Poor
Tier 1
Beers ES
1942/1949/1969
1943/1946/1953/19
63
1.39
PK-6
Yes
Poor
Fair
Fair
2.67
PS-5
Yes
1910/1957/1993
1909/1940/1941/19
70
1941/1942/1943/19
70
2.89
PK-6
Yes
Poor
Poor/Fair
Poor
Fair
1.15
PS-6
Yes
Poor
Poor
1.48
PS-5
Yes
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Anacostia HS
Davis ES
Garfield ES
Ketcham ES
Kimball ES
Partial
Yes
Tier 4
Orr ES
Randle
Highlands ES
1974
0.82
PK-5
1912/1970
3.56
PK-6
Yes
Poor
Poor
Tier 0
Stanton ES
1944/1950
5.51
PS-6
Yes
Poor
Fair
Tier 3
Winston ES
1976
17.67
PK-8
Good
Poor
Yes
72
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area B
Enrollment
Area B’s elementary school enrollment decreased from
4,995 in 1993 to 4,230 in 2002 (15%). During the same
time period, middle school enrollment declined by 11% and
high school enrollment by 5%. A history of enrollment by
school is shown in Table 6B-3.
The second factor that may impact enrollment in this area is the
likelihood that Pre-K will become universally available to parents who
want it. This would add nearly 500 students to the elementary
schools if the number of Pre-K students equals that of the
kindergarteners.
To understand enrollment patterns it is important to
emphasize that DCPS allows students to attend schools of
their choice if space is available in the receiving school. In
Planning Area B, approximately 46% of the students
choose to attend a school other than their neighborhood
school. Schools that receive more students than they
send to other schools are net receiving schools and often
signify ‘preferred schools’. Table 6B-2 shows the school
resident attending and total enrollment by school. Overall,
Planning Area B is net sending – losing 22% of its
enrollment to other planning areas.
Third, high school reform efforts, modernization, and programmatic
changes at Anacostia HS may encourage better retention rates in the
upper grades. This may increase high school enrollment by 10 - 15%
over the next 10 years.
Three factors may cause increases in enrollment in this
area – housing turnover, increases in Pre-K enrollment,
and higher retention rates in the high school.
The city is projecting thousands of new housing units to be
built on vacant and underutilized land in the Anacostia
area. At the same time, there have been several
redevelopment projects where older apartments have
been razed and mixed housing is being rebuilt.
Table 6B-2
School
Resident
Resident
Attending
277
166
368
322
410
237
%
Resident
Attending
70%
54%
58%
53%
59%
56%
2003
Enrollment
439
343
504
413
413
423
% of
Resident
Enrollment
63%
48%
73%
78%
99%
56%
Beers ES
Davis ES
Garfield ES
Ketcham ES
Kimball ES
Orr ES
Randle
Highlands ES
Stanton ES
Winston ES
Kramer MS
Sousa MS
Anacostia HS
TOTAL
394
306
634
606
694
427
354
844
824
614
332
1275
7,304
240
500
429
303
171
523
3,946
68%
59%
52%
49%
52%
41%
54%
493
576
531
400
405
618
5558
49%
87%
81%
76%
42%
85%
71%
73
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area B
Planning Area B: Enrollment History By School
School
Table 6B-3
93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
Beers Elementary
683
668
590
585
567
536
576
558
488
444
Davis Elementary
549
515
510
516
524
507
479
434
386
338
Garfield Elementary
508
511
550
587
548
552
541
481
489
520
Ketcham Elementary
589
591
595
556
569
526
482
460
412
413
Kimball Elementary
610
635
580
521
492
494
509
508
472
452
Orr Elementary
531
512
543
494
515
452
493
449
396
407
Randle Highlands
Elementary
456
452
448
444
430
423
435
435
436
479
Stanton Elementary
501
439
473
553
618
584
622
644
593
622
Winston Elementary
568
625
623
656
632
571
497
536
558
555
Total Elementary
4,995
4,948
4,912
4,912
4,895
4,645
4,634
4,505
4,230
4,230
Kramer MS
366
410
368
227
293
284
267
251
313
369
Sousa MS
507
419
425
348
335
336
346
364
399
420
873
829
793
575
628
620
613
615
712
789
729
741
849
1,036
991
636
778
803
769
693
729
741
849
1,036
991
636
778
803
769
693
6,597
6,518
6,554
6,514
5,901
6,025
5,923
5,711
5,712
Total Middle School
Anacostia SHS
Total High School
Area Total
6,523
74
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area B
Grade Level Restructuring
Modernization
Planning Area B requested consistent grade structures and
reorganization for grades PK-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Sousa and
Kramer middle schools already serve Grades 6-8. However,
five elementary schools continue to house their sixth grades.
DCPS is evaluating the programmatic implication and timing of
a full reorganization in this area.
The 2000 Facilities Master Plan recommended that DCPS
modernize 10 schools annually. The community committees
that attended the planning meetings prioritized schools to be
completed in the first 4-6 years of the program. The
Committee of 21 proposed a capital program that identified
Tiers 0-4 based on the prioritized lists. Currently most Tier 0
(Randle Highlands ES) projects are under construction or have
been completed. Tier 1 (Sousa MS) projects are completing
the planning and design phase. Tier 2 (Kramer MS and
Anacostia HS) projects are in the early stages of design.
The implication of this request on enrollment is shown in Table
6B-4. (Using 2003 enrollment as an example)
School
Current
Grades
Planned
Grades
2003
Enrollment
Table 6B-4
Projected
Enrollment
If Reorg.
Anacostia HS
9-12
618
712
Kramer MS
6-8
400
515
Sousa MS
6-8
9-12
No
Change
No
Change
405
496
Beers ES
PK-6
PK-5
439
365
Garfield ES
PK-6
PK-5
504
433
Ketcham ES
Randle
Highlands ES
PK-6
PK-5
413
334
PK-6
PK-5
493
428
Stanton ES
PK-6
PK-5
576
493
As part of the modernization program, DCPS was expected to
‘right size’ the schools to match the projected enrollment,
thereby reducing the total square feet that the public would
maintain. Tables 6B-5 through 6B-7 show the proposed
capacity for each school (revised to reflect projected
enrollment) and the proposed square feet for the new or
modernized building. Table 6B-7 shows the total elementary
school capacity being reduced to 4,070 or nearly 600 seats in
reorganization occured.
See Chapter 5 for the criteria for ranking schools. The timing
for capital projects will be dependent on available funding.
75
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area B
Capital and Non-Capital Recommendations by School
High Schools
High Schools
Anacostia HS
High Schools Total
Proposed Capacity
1,000
1,000
Proposed Action
Current Sq. Ft.
Modernization/Replacement
247,900
247,900
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
192,000
192,000
Table 6B-5
Proposed
Tier
2
Anacostia HS – Modernization Tier 2; Accept 9th Grade students from Johnson Jr. High School; Explore Public/Private or
Public/Public opportunities.
Middle Schools
Middle Schools
Kramer MS
Sousa MS
Middle Schools Total
Proposed Capacity
500
650
1,150
Proposed Action
Current Sq. Ft.
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization
154,000
160,000
314,000
Table 6B-6
Proposed Sq. Ft.
Proposed
Tier
80,000
2
136,000/24,000
1
240,000
Kramer MS – Modernization Tier 2.
Sousa MS – Modernization Tier 1; Explore Public/Private or Public/Public opportunities for excess space.
Elementary Schools
Elementary Schools
Beers ES
Davis ES
Garfield ES
Ketcham ES
Kimball ES
Orr ES
Randle Highlands ES
Stanton ES
Winston ES
Elementary Schools Total
Proposed Capacity
400
350
500
400
400
500
520
500
500
4,070
Proposed Action
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Renovation
Modernization/Addition
Modernization/Replacement
Renovation
Current
Sq. Ft.
77,500
71,100
58,908
88,300
83,400
75,900
52,900
83,800
137,700
729,508
Table 6B-7
Proposed
Proposed
Sq. Ft.
Tier
60,000
52,500
75,000
60,000
4
60,000
75,000
78,000
0
75,000
3
75,000
607,500
Ketcham ES - Modernization Tier 4.
Randle Highlands ES – Modernization 2003.
Stanton ES – Modernization Tier 3.
76
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area C
Kenilworth ES #
Ronald BrownMS%
HoustonES#
BrowneJHS
Burrville ES#
# ThomasES
YoungES
# Merritt ES
H.D.WoodsonSHS
AitonES #
# River Terrace ES
Smothers ES #
C
#
Sousa JHS
#
#
DrewES
%Miller MS
# BenningES
Plummer ES
$
H
EvansJHS
%
ShaddES#
NalleES
#
%
Harris,C.W. ES
#
%
G
E
F
B
Fletcher/JohnsonMS
Kimball ES
#
A
DavisES
B
77District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
C
D
Planning Area C
Background
The schools in Planning Area C are among some of the most
recently built schools in the District. Only three of the schools
were built prior to 1950 – Smothers Elementary (1923),
Kenilworth Elementary (1933), and Thomas Elementary
(1946). Area C has four open plan schools.
Planning Area C encompasses 18 schools including two
different elementary school grade configurations, middle
schools, two PK-8 Centers, and a high school.
Planning Area C Schools: Facilities Characteristics
School
Woodson HS
Ron Brown MS
Evans MS
Aiton ES
Benning ES
Burrville ES
Drew ES
C.W. Harris ES
Houston ES
FletcherJohnson EC
Kenilworth ES
Merritt ES
Nalle ES
Plummer ES
River Terrace
ES
Shadd ES
Smothers ES
Thomas ES
Date Built or
Modernized
1973
1967
1964
1960
1976
1980
1959
1964
1962
Acreage
Table 6C-1
Open
Space
15.23
4.73
8.54
3.9
2.99
1.61
2.31
3.16
4.72
Current
Grades
9-12
6-8
6-8
PK-5
PK-6
PK-6
PS-6
PS-6
PK-6
1977
1933/1959/1962
1976
1950/1960/1969
1959
15.26
3.56
3.09
6.52
2.48
PS-8
PS-6
PS-8
PS-5
PK-5
Yes
1952/1959
1955/1969
1923/1927/1939
1946/1967/1973
4.17
4.58
1.65
2.31
PS-6
PS-5
PK-6
PS-6
Historically
Significant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Facilities
Condition
Fair
Fair/Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Good/Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Educational
Adequacy
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good/Fair
Poor
Good/Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Comment
Tier 4
Swing Space
Tier 3
Tier 2
Tier 1
79
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area C
Enrollment
Area C’s elementary school enrollment decreased from
approximately 6,150 in 1993 to 4,800 in 2002 (19%).
During the same time period, high school enrollment
declined by 14%. A history of enrollment by school is
shown in Table 6C-3.
To understand enrollment patterns, it is important to
emphasize that DCPS allows students to attend schools of
their choice if space is available in the receiving school. In
Planning Area C, approximately 48% of the students
choose to attend a school other than their neighborhood
school. Schools that receive more students than they
send to other schools are net receiving schools and often
signify ‘preferred schools’. Table 6C-2 shows the school
resident attending and total enrollment by school. Overall,
Planning Area C is net sending – losing 8% of its
enrollment to other planning areas.
Three factors may cause increases in enrollment in this
area – housing turnover, increases in Pre-K enrollment,
and higher retention rates in the high school.
The city is projecting thousands of new housing units to be
built on vacant and underutilized land in the Woodson
area.
At the same time, there have been several
redevelopment projects where older apartments have been
razed and mixed housing is being rebuilt (including a Hope
VI development near Shadd ES.).
The second factor that may impact enrollment in this area
is the likelihood that Pre-K will become universally
available to parents who want it. This would add nearly 550 students
to the elementary schools if the number of Pre-K students equals that
of the kindergarteners.
Third, high school reform efforts in general and programmatic
changes at Woodson High School may encourage more students to
choose Woodson and encourage better retention rates in the upper
grades. This may increase high school enrollment by 10-15% over
the next 10 years.
School
Aiton ES
Benning ES
Burrville ES
Drew ES
C.W. Harris ES
Houston ES
Fletcher Johnson
Kenilworth ES
Merritt ES
Nalle ES
Plummer ES
River Terrace ES
Shadd ES
Smothers ES
Thomas ES
Ron Brown MS
Evans MS
H. D. Woodson
HS
TOTAL
Resident
Resident
Attending
%
Resident
Attending
464
259
394
290
634
433
360
227
477
391
831
264
166
345
450
521
422
491
294
154
111
143
352
190
143
174
264
157
282
163
89
164
318
342
193
335
63%
59%
28%
49%
56%
44%
39%
77%
55%
40%
34%
62%
54%
48%
71%
66%
46%
68%
7,419
3,868
52%
Table 6C-2
2003
% of
EnrollResident
ment
Enrollment
455
65%
232
66%
332
33%
260
55%
501
70%
345
55%
470
30%
390
45%
485
55%
356
44%
361
78%
251
65%
161
55%
244
67%
387
82%
419
82%
231
84%
907
37%
6,787
57%
80
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area C
Planning Area C: Enrollment History By School
School
93-94
94-95
Table 6C-3
95-96
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
Aiton ES
434
453
505
541
577
550
572
Benning ES
328
322
293
294
277
284
Burrville ES
458
459
457
443
430
406
Drew ES
385
376
319
315
450
C.W. Harris ES
Houston ES
Fletcher/Johnson
(PK-8)
543
385
584
395
628
403
622
403
803
785
787
Kenilworth ES
341
348
Merritt ES (PK-8)
Nalle ES
456
386
Plummer ES
00-01
01-02
02-03
550
488
454
274
277
237
210
354
341
325
320
435
398
346
313
291
641
400
583
391
574
386
573
387
533
338
485
322
701
677
485
451
489
528
526
410
399
415
392
363
362
379
377
480
385
496
381
465
360
495
436
532
442
528
463
502
434
474
395
481
348
503
477
471
479
456
411
388
382
357
344
River Terrace ES
241
213
236
265
255
234
268
261
264
238
Shadd ES
483
498
496
431
511
491
345
297
191
163
Smothers ES
304
305
295
308
292
277
297
262
267
267
Thomas ES
423
431
461
449
476
464
443
412
377
391
6,473
6,511
6,638
6,475
6,788
6,377
6,104
5,875
5,466
5,217
Ron Brown MS
561
606
603
662
611
553
471
372
496
514
Evans MS
Total Middle
Schools
324
277
279
179
270
292
290
275
259
286
885
883
882
841
881
845
761
647
755
800
1,169
1,122
1,030
1,087
1,146
1,022
1,025
1,002
900
998
1,169
1,122
2,291
1,087
1,146
2,233
1,025
1,002
900
998
8,527
8,516
9,811
8,403
8,815
9,455
7,890
7,524
7,121
7,015
Total Elementary
H.D. Woodson HS
Total High Schools
AREA TOTAL
81
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area C
Grade Level Restructuring
Consolidations
Planning Area C requested consistent grade structures and
reorganization for grades PK-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Ron Brown
and the soon to open Kelly Miller middle schools are already
serving Grades 6-8.
However, ten elementary schools
continue to house their sixth grades. DCPS is evaluating the
programmatic implication and timing of a full reorganization in
this area.
Table 6C-4
Planning Area C has elementary school capacity for 6,000
students. In 2002, there were 5,217 students in grades PS-6/8
or 783 available seats.
School
Ron Brown
MS
Kelly
Miller
MS*
Aiton ES
Benning ES
Burrville ES
Drew ES
C.W. Harris
ES
Houston ES
Kenilworth
ES
River Terrace
ES
Smothers ES
Thomas ES
Current
Grades
Planned
Grades
2003
Enrollment
6-8
419
286
300
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
No
change
No
change
PK-5
PK-5
PK-5
PK-5
PK-5
Projected
Enrollment
if Reorg.
549
455
232
332
260
501
409
177
281
252
405
PK-6
PK-6
PK-5
PK-5
345
390
294
324
PK-6
PK-5
251
208
PK-6
PK-6
PK-5
PK-5
244
387
240
370
6-8
The implication of this request on enrollment is shown in table
6C-4. (Using 2003 enrollment as an example)
*The results of the Boundary Study for Kelly Miller’s boundary
will change these numbers.
During the next six years:
§ Schools in this area may be reorganized for grades PS5, reducing enrollment in the elementary schools.
§ Enrollment overall may decline due to lower birth rates,
housing turnover, and charter school enrollment.
§ Enrollment may increase at some schools adjacent to
new housing developments.
Prior to the 2006 Facilities Plan Update, Facilities Planning staff,
working with the school communities, will conduct a planning
study of selected elementary schools in this area to consider
whether some schools should be consolidated. See Chapter 2
section on Planning Studies for information on next steps.
Modernization
The 2000 Facilities Master Plan recommended that DCPS
modernize 10 schools annually. The community committees
that attended the planning meetings prioritized schools to be
completed in the first 4-6 years of the program. The Committee
of 21 proposed a capital program that identified Tiers 0-4 based
on the prioritized lists. Currently, most Tier 0 (Kelly Miller MS)
projects are under construction or have been completed. Tier 1
(Thomas ES and H.D. Woodson HS) projects are completing the
planning and design phase. Tier 2 (Smothers ES) projects are
in the early stages of design.
82
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area C
As part of the modernization program, DCPS was expected to
‘right size’ the schools to match the projected enrollment,
thereby reducing the total square feet that the public would
maintain. Tables 6C-5 through 6C-7 show the proposed
capacity for each school (revised to reflect projected
enrollment) and the proposed square feet for the new or
modernized building. Table 6C-7 shows that the total
elementary capacity would be reduced to 6,080 or nearly 700
seats.
See Chapter 5 for the criteria for ranking schools. The timing
for capital projects will be dependent on available funding.
Capital and Non-Capital Recommendations by School
High Schools
High Schools
H.D. Woodson HS
High Schools Total
Table 6C-5
Proposed Capacity
1,100
1,100
Proposed Action
Replacement
Current Sq.
Ft.
251,100
251,100
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
228,320
228,320
Proposed
Tier
1
H.D. Woodson HS – Modernization Tier 1; High School Planning Study to include Eastern and Spingarn High Schools
Middle Schools
Middle Schools
Ron Brown MS
Evans MS
Kelly Miller MS
Middle Schools Total
Table 6C-6
Proposed Capacity
500
NA
600
1,100
Proposed Action
Modernization /Replacement
Swing Space
Replacement
Current Sq.
Ft.
156,000
125,800
0
156,000
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
80,000
NA
117,781
197,781
Proposed
Tier
0
Middle School Planning Study to revise attendance boundaries for Kelly Miller, Ron Brown, and Fletcher-Johnson.
Ron Brown MS – Explore Public/Private or Public/Public opportunities to use excess space.
Evan MS – Use as Swing space beginning 2004; Explore Public/Public opportunities for excess space.
Kelly Miller MS – Replacement school to open 1/2004.
83
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area C
Elementary Schools
Elementary Schools
Aiton ES
Benning ES
Burrville ES
Drew ES
C.W. Harris ES
Houston ES
Fletcher Johnson ES
Kenilworth ES
Merritt ES
Nalle ES
Plummer ES
River Terrace ES
Shadd ES
Smothers ES
Thomas ES
Elementary Schools Total
Table 6C-7
Proposed
Capacity
400
300
400
400
400
400
500
400
500
400
400
300
400
300
500
6,080
Proposed Action
Modernization/Replacement
Renovation
Renovation
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Renovation
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Replacement
Current
Sq. Ft.
57,100
70,900
95,000
72,800
56,000
59,900
302,000
57,100
90,400
83,900
69,400
62,800
72,100
43,000
87,600
1,280,000
Proposed
Sq. Ft.
60,000
45,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
75,000
60,000
75,000
60,000
60,000
45,000
60,000
45,000
70,600
910,600
Proposed
Tier
4
3
2
1
Elementary School Planning Study; Schools included in the study are Drew, Fletcher-Johnson, C.W. Harris, Nalle, and Shadd
elementary schools.
Aiton ES – Modernization Tier 4.
Benning ES – Explore Public/Private or Public/Public opportunities.
C.W. Harris ES - Modernization Tier 3.
Shadd ES – Explore Public/Private or Public/Public opportunities.
Smothers ES – Modernization Tier 2.
Thomas ES – Modernization Tier 1.
84
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area D
#HydeES
MontgomeryESDunb
HS tonSHS
#arWS
ashing
$ $
%FrancisJHS
Thomson,J.S. ES
#StevensES
%
#Terrell JHS
Walker-JonesES #
Wilson, J.O. ES
#
$
$School WithoutWalls
#WebbES
#WheatleyES
# Miner ES #
Ludlow-Taylor ES
%
Stuart-HobsonMS
BrowneJHS
%
Phelps $# Young ES
$arnSHS
Sping
#GibbsES
#R
%EliotJHS
#PeabodyE#
S
$EasternSHS
HineJHS
D
Brent ES#
% #
AmidonES
%
#PayneES
# WatkinsES
Sousa
#
Kim
#Tyler ES
JeffersonJHS
#Van NessES
#
BowenES
Orr ES
% #
Kramer JHS
AnacostiaSHS
$
#KetchamES
#RandleH
B
Bee
H
G
E
F
SavoyES
BirneyES
#
#
WilkinsonES
##
MotenES
JohnsonJHS
%
# StantonES
#
WinstonES
GarfieldES
#
Turner ES
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
C
D
B
A
Planning Area D
Background
Planning Area D encompasses 22 schools, representing a
wide range of grade configurations, including three
different elementary school configurations, a middle school,
four junior high schools, one special education center, and two
high schools.
Planning Area D Schools: Facilities Characteristics
School
Eastern HS
Date Built or
Modernized
Acreage
Current
Grades
1923/1938
3.36
School w/o Walls HS
Open
Space
Historically
Significant
Facilities
Condition
Educational
Adequacy
9-12
Yes
Fair
Good
Comment
1882
0.48
9-12
Yes
Poor
Poor
1927/1931
1.68
5-8
Yes
Fair/Poor
Fair
Eliot JHS
1931/1936/1964
4.82
7-9
Yes
Poor
Hine JHS
1966
2.48
7-9
Jefferson JHS
1940
3.36
7-9
Yes
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
Good/Fair
Good/Fair
1952/1954
2.31
7-9
Poor
Fair
Tier 2
Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair
Fair/Poor
Tier 3
Stuart-Hobson MS
R.H. Terrell JHS
Amidon ES
Bowen ES
4.84
4.02
PK-6
PK-6
Brent ES
1968
1.11
PK-6
Poor
Fair
Gibbs ES
1966
1.61
PS-6
Poor
Fair/Poor
Ludlow-Taylor ES
1969
3.29
PS-6
Fair
Fair
Maury ES
1886/1961
1.71
PK-6
Poor
Fair/Poor
Miner ES
2003
0.59
PS-6
New
New
1953/1958/1971
1880
0.51
0.70
PK-6
PK-K
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
1949/1968
1.79
PK-6
Poor
Fair
1956
2.13
PS-6
Poor
Fair
Walker-Jones ES
Watkins ES
1950/1974
1962/1967
1.66
4.28
PS-6
PS-4
Partial
Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
J.O. Wilson ES
1961/1974
3.41
PK-6
Partial
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
1959
0.59
Special Ed.
Poor
Poor
Tyler ES
Van Ness ES
Prospect LC
Yes
Yes
Yes
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
Tier 4
Fair
1960/1975
1931/1976
Payne ES
Peabody ES
Partial
Partial
Tier 3
Tier 0
Tier 1
87
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area D
Table 6D-1
The schools in Planning Area D are among some of the
District’s oldest, averaging over 60 years of age. The oldest
school is Peabody ES, built in 1880.
Table 6D-2
School
Resident
Resident
Attending
%
Resident
Attending
2003
Enrollment
% of
Reside
nt
Enrollment
Amidon
Bowen
Brent
Gibbs
LudlowTaylor
Maury
Miner
Payne
Peabody
Tyler
Van
Ness
WalkerJones
Watkins
Wilson,
J.O.
StuartHobson
Eliot
Hine
Jefferso
n
Terrell,
R.H.
Eastern
School
without
Walls
Total
116
670
90
517
228
77
266
21
326
99
66%
40%
23%
63%
43%
400
299
255
462
272
19%
89%
8%
71%
36%
136
575
238
79
203
389
84
308
124
3
119
208
62%
54%
52%
4%
59%
53%
268
508
289
154
276
177
31%
61%
43%
2%
43%
118%
743
507
68%
509
99%
214
524
91
314
43%
60%
505
412
18%
76%
345
302
88%
410
74%
89
197
238
42
115
134
47%
58%
56%
333
657
798
13%
18%
17%
295
142
48%
284
50%
1,061
N/A
518
N/A
49%
N/A
854
325
61%
N/A
6,947
3,800
55%
8,447
45%
Enrollment
Area D elementary school enrollment decreased from 5,954 in
1993 to 5,034 in 2002 (15%). During the same time period,
middle school enrollment declined by 8% and high school
enrollment by 33%. A history of enrollment by school is shown
in Table 6D-3.
To understand enrollment patterns it is important to emphasize
that DCPS allows students to attend schools of their choice if
space is available in the receiving school. In Planning Area D,
approximately 45% of the students choose to attend a school
other than their neighborhood school. Schools that receive
more students than they send to other schools are net
receiving schools and often signify ‘preferred schools’. Table
6D-2 shows the school resident attending and total enrollment
by school. Overall, Planning Area D is net receiving – taking
in 21% of its enrollment from other planning areas.
Three factors may cause increases in enrollment in this area
– housing turnover, increases in Pre-K enrollment, and higher
retention rates in the high school.
The city is projecting thousands of new housing units to be
built on vacant and underutilized land in the Woodson area. At
the same time, there have been several redevelopment
projects where older apartments have been razed and mixed
housing is being rebuilt (including a Hope VI redevelopment
near Van Ness ES).
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
88
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area D
The second factor that may impact enrollment in this area is
the likelihood that Pre-K will become universally available to
parents who want it. This would add nearly 550 students to
the elementary schools if the number of Pre-K students equals
that of the kindergarteners.
Planning Area D: Enrollment History By School
School
Amidon ES
Bowen ES
Brent ES
Gibbs ES
Ludlow-Taylor ES
Maury ES
Miner ES
Payne ES
Peabody ES
Emilia Reggio* ES
Tyler ES
Van Ness ES
Walker-Jones ES
Watkins ES
Wilson, J.O. ES
Total Elementary
Eliot JHS
Hine JHS
Jefferson JHS
Stuart-Hobson MS
Terrell, R.H. JHS
Total Middle Schools
Eastern HS
School w/o Walls HS
Total High Schools
AREA TOTAL
93-94
442
447
289
376
415
315
537
423
207
N/A
408
410
559
553
573
5,954
450
901
791
373
259
2,774
1,696
236
1,932
19,388
94-95
440
426
280
375
428
330
494
420
200
N/A
396
454
552
522
583
5,900
409
815
796
367
311
2,698
1,508
272
1,780
18,976
95-96
390
435
279
393
375
318
467
447
206
N/A
446
459
564
487
549
5,815
439
716
799
332
285
2,571
1,512
297
1,809
18,581
96-97
409
444
291
419
364
319
437
397
210
N/A
442
463
564
457
550
5,766
444
680
817
388
253
2,582
1,653
317
1,970
18,666
Third, high school reform efforts and programmatic changes
may encourage better retention rates in the upper grades.
This may increase high school enrollment by 10-15% over the
next 10 years.
Table 6D-3
97-98
417
429
338
619
389
343
525
411
207
N/A
453
485
622
445
554
6,237
430
720
796
365
346
2,657
1,632
319
1,951
19,739
98-99
426
403
332
519
359
334
507
366
208
N/A
313
336
612
405
512
5,632
450
667
785
338
342
2,582
1,426
326
1,752
18,180
99-00
429
392
318
525
325
316
501
332
219
N/A
327
309
608
467
550
5,618
408
642
777
365
287
2,479
1,543
339
1,882
18,076
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
00-01
448
351
321
534
292
320
491
316
215
N/A
341
302
586
467
475
5,459
366
658
775
392
240
2,431
1,327
320
1,647
17,427
01-02
438
324
296
550
276
303
493
301
219
N/A
334
269
550
465
453
5,271
331
650
869
397
286
2,533
1,186
328
1,514
17,122
02-03
438
294
295
528
278
283
462
274
141
83
290
250
529
475
414
5,034
320
675
882
387
294
2,558
968
326
1,294
16,478
89
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area D
Grade Level Restructuring
Table 6D-4
Planning Area D requested flexibility in grade structures for
their schools. To stay consistent with the District’s high school
reform effort, Eliot, Hine, Jefferson, and Terrell Junior High
Schools would need to send their 9th grade students to
Eastern, Spingarn, Dunbar and Wilson High Schools.
The implication of this request on enrollment is shown in Table
6D-4.
Consolidations
Planning Area D has elementary school capacity for 6,310
students. In 2002, there were 5,034 students in grades PS-6
or 1,276 available seats. Similarly, midlevel capacity was
2,792 in 2003, while enrollment for Grades 7-8 would be 1,889
or 900 seats available.
During the next six years:
§ Enrollment overall may decline due to lower birth rates,
housing turnover, and charter school enrollment.
§ Enrollment may increase at some schools adjacent to
new housing developments.
Prior to the 2006 Facilities Plan Update, Facilities Planning
staff, working with the school communities, will conduct a
planning study of selected elementary schools and midlevel
schools in this area to consider whether some schools should
be consolidated. See Chapter 2 section on Planning Studies
for information on next steps.
School
Eastern HS
Eliot JHS
Hine JHS
Jefferson
JHS
Terrell, R.H.
JHS
Current
Grades
Planned
Grades
2003
Enrollment
Projected
Enrollment
After Reorg.
9-12
7-9
7-9
No
Change
7-8
7-8
854
333
657
1166
274
546
7-9
7-8
798
640
7-9
7-8
284
229
Modernization
The 2000 Facilities Master Plan recommended that DCPS
modernize 10 schools annually. The community committees
that attended the planning meetings prioritized schools to be
completed in the first 4-6 years of the program. The
Committee of 21 proposed a capital program that identified
Tiers 0-4 based on the prioritized lists. Currently most Tier 0
(Miner ES) projects are under construction or have been
completed. Tier 1 (Walker Jones ES) projects are completing
the planning and design phase. Tier 2 (Terrell JHS) projects
are in the early stages of design.
As part of the modernization program, DCPS was expected to
‘right size’ the schools to match the projected enrollment,
thereby reducing the total square feet that the public would
maintain. Tables 6D-5 through 6D-7 show the proposed
capacity for each school (revised to reflect projected
enrollment) and the proposed square feet for the new or
modernized building. At the completion of the program, DCPS
hopes to operate nearly one million fewer square feet.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
90
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area D
Table 6D-7 shows that the total elementary capacity would be
reduced to 5,390 or nearly 920 seats.
See Chapter 5 for the criteria for ranking schools. The timing
for capital projects will be dependent on available funding.
Capital and Non-Capital Recommendations by School
High Schools
High Schools
Eastern HS
School w/o Walls HS
High Schools Total
Table 6D-5
Proposed Capacity
1,300
400
1,700
Proposed Action
Modernization
Modernization/Addition
Current Sq.
Ft.
288,800
32,000
320,800
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
249,600
76,800
326,400
Proposed
Tier
3
School Without Walls HS – Modernization/Addition Tier 3; DCPS is pursuing a Public/public partnership with George Washington
University.
Eastern HS – Receive 9th Grade 2005; HS Planning Study to include Woodson and Spingarn.
Middle Schools
Middle Schools
Eliot JHS
Hine JHS
Jefferson JHS
R.H. Terrell JHS
Middle Schools Total
Table 6D-6
Proposed Capacity
400
700
700
400
2,200
Proposed Action
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization/Replacement
Current Sq.
Ft.
155,100
131,300
109,000
143,700
539,100
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
64,000
112,000
112,000
64,000
352,000
Proposed
Tier
4
2
Middle School Planning Study; Schools included in the study are Eliot, Hine, Browne and R.H. Terrell Junior High Schools.
Eliot JHS – Modernization Tier 4; Send 9th grade students to feeder high schools.
Hine JHS and Jefferson JHS – Send 9th grade students to feeder high schools; Explore Public/Private or Public/Public
opportunities.
R.H. Terrell JHS – Modernization/Replacement Tier 2 – Delay Planning Pending Middle school Study; Send 9th grade students to
feeder high school.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
91
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area D
Elementary Schools
Elementary Schools
Amidon ES
Bowen ES
Brent ES
Gibbs ES
Ludlow-Taylor ES
Maury ES
Miner ES
Payne ES
Peabody ES
Tyler ES
Van Ness ES
Walker-Jones ES
Watkins ES
J.O. Wilson ES
Prospect ES
Elementary Schools Total
Table 6D-7
Proposed Capacity
450
320
320
500
320
320
550
320
220
320
320
600
450
400
140
5,530
Proposed Action
Modernization
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization
Modernization
Replacement – Complete
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization
Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization
Current
Sq. Ft.
70,800
71,900
47,500
64,800
66,900
46,800
63,500
83,800
37,800
69,600
49,400
104,200
69,300
98,900
TBD
945,200
Proposed
Sq. Ft.
67,500
48,000
48,000
75,000
48,000
48,000
76,900
48,000
33,000
48,000
48,000
89,708
67,500
60,000
TBD
805,608
Proposed
Tier
3
0
1
Elementary School Planning Study; Schools included in the study are Amidon, Bowen, Brent, Tyler, and Van Ness Elementary
Schools.
Bowen ES – Modernization/Replacement Tier 3.
Miner ES – Replacement Tier 0. Opened 2003.
Van Ness ES – Consider temporary closure to parallel housing re-development. Work with community during transition; Explore
Public/Private or Public/Public opportunities.
Walker-Jones ES – Replacement Tier 1.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
92
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area E
3r d
Mis
sour
i
Rudolph ES
ll ES
#
%
Ha
mp
shir
e
Ka
n sa
s
#
N ew
S
Backus JHS
De cat ur
5t h
#
4 th
is
Illino
Barnard ES
Critt ende n
# Clark ES
Bunker Hill ES
#
# Brookland ES
nd ES
view ES
#
Burroughs ES
#
$ Luke Moore Acadamey SHS
# Slowe ES
Marshall ES
tural CDC
#
onroe ES
#
Shaed ES
#
er SHS
$
# Noyes ES
# Langdon ES
H
Meyer ES
G
-Eckington ES
d ES
#
$ McKinley SHS
# Emery ES
aw JHS
C
D
B
Cook, J.F. ES
S
#
SHS
# Dunbar# Washington
ntgomery ES
SHS
$
$
S
E
F
#
%
S
Kenilworth ES
#
Ronald Brown%
MS
Houston ES
#
# Webb ES
M
Terrell JHS
%
#
Walker-Jones ES
#
Wilson, J.O. ES
#
Ludlow-Taylor ES
%
# Wheatley ES
Browne JHS
Phelps $%
# Young ES
Spingarn SHS
Miner ES
Stuart-Hobson MS
#
# Gibbs ES
Burrville ES
#
# Thomas ES
$
Benning
# River Terrace ES
A
# Merritt ES
Aiton ES
#
H.D. Woodson SHS
$#
Drew ES
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area E
Background
There are 21 schools in Planning Area E including two
different elementary school grade configurations, a middle
school, a PK-8 Center, and two zoned and four city-wide high
schools.
Table 6E-1
School
Date Built or Modernized
Acreage
Current
Grades
Open
Space
Dunbar HS
1977
6.08
9-12
Yes
Luke Moore HS
1891
1.38
9-12
Mckinley HS
1928
Historically
Significant
Yes
Facilities
Condition
Educational
Adequacy
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Yes
1934/1974
1941
12.4
8.08
9-12
9-12
Yes
Yes
Fair/Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
1912/1928/1940
2.14
9-12
Yes
Poor
Fair/Poor
Backus MS
Browne JHS
1963
1932/1953/1971
2.91
4.13
6-8
7-9
Yes
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
1.91
PK-6
Bunker Hill ES
1974
1940/1943/1948/1953/
1965
Fair
Fair
Poor
4.39
PK-6
Yes
Burroughs ES
J.F. Cook ES
1921/1927/1960
1926
5.45
0.76
PK-6
PK-6
Yes
Yes
1969
2.2
PS-6
1930/1960/1972
2.42
PS-5
Emery ES
Langdon ES
Marshall ES
1980
PS-8
Noyes ES
1931/1940/1960
3.66
PS-6
Shaed ES
1971
0.67
PK-6
1.97
3.32
PS-6
PK-6
1.97
PS-6
5.74
PS-6
Slowe ES
Webb ES
Wheatley ES
Young ES
1948/1951/1966/1967
1960/1966/1972
1903/1922/1929/1967
1931/1937/1949/1959/
1978
Yes
Fair
No
Yes
Yes
City-wide
Tier 1
Open 2004
Phelps HS
Spingarn HS
M.M. Washington
HS
Brookland ES
Comment
Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Poor
City-wide
Tier 3
Tier 4
Poor
Poor
Poor
Yes
Fair/Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair
Tier 2
Partial
Poor
Fair
Yes
Poor
Fair/Poor
Tier 1
Yes
Fair
Good/Poor
Yes
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
Tier 0
95
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area E
Planning Area E Schools: Facilities Characteristics
Enrollment
Area E elementary school enrollment decreased from
approximately 5,315 in 1993 to 4,761 in 2002 (10%). A
history of enrollment by school is shown in Table 6E-3.
To understand enrollment patterns it is important to
emphasize that DCPS allows students to attend schools of
their choice if space is available in the receiving school. In
Planning Area E, approximately 51% of the students choose
to attend a school other than their neighborhood school.
Schools that receive more students than they send to other
schools are net receiving schools and often signify
‘preferred schools’. Table 6E-2 shows the school resident
attending and total enrollment by school. Overall, Planning
Area E is net sending – losing 20% of its enrollment to other
planning areas.
Three factors may cause increases in enrollment in this
area – housing turnover, increases in Pre-K enrollment, and
higher retention rates in the high school.
The city is projecting thousand of new housing units to be
built on vacant and underutilized land in the Dunbar High
School area. The opening of the new Metro stop on New
York Avenue is projected to spur redevelopment in this area.
The second factor that may impact enrollment in this area is
the likelihood that Pre-K will become universally available to
parents who want it. This would add nearly 550 students to
the elementary schools if the number of Pre-K students
equals that of the kindergarteners.
McKinley Science and Technology High School is projected to
open in 2004. It will draw enrollment from high schools throughout
the city as well as attract students that might not otherwise choose
a DC public school. It is located in the Dunbar service area and
may have a significant impact on the zoned schools in this area.
See Chapter 4 for a description of the high school reform efforts
and the projected impact of McKinley’s opening.
Table 6E-2
School
516
347
356
370
463
413
253
362
395
509
535
480
604
756
791
Resident
Attending
218
208
182
180
267
190
156
119
242
276
365
259
344
393
367
%
Resident
Attending
42%
60%
51%
49%
58%
46%
62%
33%
61%
46%
68%
54%
57%
52%
46%
2003
Enrollment
301
329
266
237
357
408
327
214
307
396
496
286
433
505
509
% of
Enrollment
72%
63%
68%
76%
75%
47%
48%
56%
79%
70%
74%
91%
79%
78%
72%
978
375
38%
1062
35%
1,014
9,142
307
4,448
N/A
49%
617
7,050
50%
63%
Resident
Brookland ES
Bunker Hill ES
Burroughs ES
J.F. Cook ES
Emery ES
Langdon ES
Marshall ES
Noyes ES
Shaed ES
Slowe ES
Webb ES
Wheatley ES
Young ES
Backus MS
Browne MS
Dunbar HS
(incl. pre
engineering)
Spingarn/Phelps
HS
Total
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
96
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area E
Phelps, now closed for modernization, is projected to reopen
with high technology vocational programs and will also draw
students city-wide, to the Spingarn/Phelps campus.
Table 6E-3
Planning Area E: Enrollment History By School
School
Brookland ES
Bunker Hill ES
Burroughs ES
J.F. Cook ES
Emery ES
Langdon ES
Marshall ES (Previously
Fort Lincoln)
Noyes ES
Shaed ES
Slowe ES
Webb ES
Wheatley ES
Young ES
Total Elementary
93-94
407
528
368
261
498
366
94-95
400
489
378
281
479
374
95-96
391
482
352
309
473
378
96-97
401
468
375
282
442
361
97-98
426
474
418
312
453
502
98-99
363
438
382
300
414
401
99-00
354
454
363
268
418
423
00-01
352
445
312
281
421
419
01-02
356
409
276
282
386
404
02-03
358
421
265
248
367
387
384
341
439
481
533
623
470
5,699
330
330
452
526
478
592
489
5,598
318
356
400
580
500
544
455
5,538
296
306
399
611
509
551
493
5,494
385
319
399
561
567
538
510
5,864
367
355
334
534
508
488
458
5,342
333
336
303
523
460
462
468
5,165
343
325
278
520
525
422
510
5,353
348
220
372
487
558
365
474
4,937
345
202
370
471
536
350
441
4,761
Backus MS
Browne MS
Total Middle Schools
470
533
1,003
488
522
1,010
438
526
964
416
554
970
566
547
1,113
481
499
980
415
410
825
486
342
828
519
391
910
569
459
1,028
Dunbar HS
Mckinley HS
Luke Moore HS
Phelps HS
Spingarn HS
MM Washington HS
Total High Schools
743
870
569
434
763
297
3,676
715
838
315
405
883
400
3,556
695
664
293
399
803
394
3,248
793
0
302
529
830
567
3,021
828
0
372
501
1,052
285
3,038
855
0
251
403
712
376
2,597
845
0
196
435
715
383
2,574
914
0
225
361
629
386
1,886
990
0
256
258
595
335
1,839
1,078
0
264
0
749
329
2,280
232
236
261
273
288
272
177
181
173
169
9,657
9,755
9,400
9,456
10,303
9,191
8,741
7,723
7,639
8,238
Mamie Lee (SE/PK-12)
AREA TOTAL
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
97
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area E
Grade Level Restructuring
School
Planning Area E requested flexibility in grade structures for
their schools. To stay consistent with the District’s high school
reform effort, Browne Junior High School would need to send
its 9th grade students to Spingarn High School.
Table 6E-4 shows the impact of this change in Planning Area
E.
Consolidations
Planning Area E has elementary school capacity for 5,592
students. In 2002, there were 4,761 students in grades PS-6
or 831 available seats.
During the next six years:
§
§
§
Schools in this area may be reorganized for grades
PS-5, reducing enrollment in the elementary schools.
Enrollment overall may decline due to lower birth rates,
housing turnover, and charter school enrollment.
Enrollment may increase at some schools adjacent to
new housing developments.
Prior to the 2006 Facilities Plan Update, Facilities Planning
staff, working with the school communities, will conduct a
planning study of selected elementary schools in this area to
consider whether some schools should be consolidated. See
Chapter 2 section on Planning Studies for information on next
steps.
Dunbar HS
Spingarn HS
Browne JHS
Current
Grades
Planned
Grades
Projected
2003-04
Enrollment
9-12
9-12
7-9
No change
No change
6-8
894
670
516
Table 6E-4
Projected
Enrollment
After
Reorg.
1053
784
364
Modernization
The 2000 Facilities Master Plan recommended that DCPS
modernize 10 schools annually. The community committees
that attended the planning meetings prioritized schools to be
completed in the first 4-6 years of the program. The
Committee of 21 proposed a capital program that identified
Tiers 0-4 based on the prioritized lists. Currently most Tier 0
(Noyes, McKinley Tech) projects are under construction or
have been completed.
Tier 1 (Wheatley) projects are
completing the planning and design phase. Tier 2 (Slowe)
projects are in the early stages of design.
As part of the modernization program, DCPS was expected to
‘right size’ the schools to match the projected enrollment,
thereby reducing the total square feet that the public would
maintain. Tables 6E-5 through 6E-7 show the proposed
capacity for each school (revised to reflect projected
enrollment) and the proposed square feet for the new or
modernized building. At the completion of the program, DCPS
hopes to operate 800,000 fewer square feet in Area E.
See Chapter 5 for the criteria for ranking schools. The timing
for capital projects will be dependent on available funding.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
98
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area E
Capital and Non-Capital Recommendations by School
High Schools
High Schools
Table 6E-5
Proposed Capacity
Dunbar HS
1,000
McKinley HS
800
Luke Moore HS
275/350
Phelps HS
400
Spingarn HS
600/50*
MM Washington HS
300/50*
High Schools Total
3,050
* Co-location with special education centers
Proposed Action
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization/Addition
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Current
Sq. Ft.
343,400
282,200
27,482
136,000
225,000
89,700
1,103,782
Proposed
Sq. Ft.
192,000
153,600
63,718
76,800
124,800
89,700
700,618
Proposed
Tier
0
1
TBD
High school planning study to review boundaries and articulation; Schools to be included are Dunbar, Cardozo, Wilson, and
Roosevelt high schools.
McKinley HS – Identify co-location partners for A Wing.
Phelps HS – Consolidation w/Spingarn HS.
Spingarn HS - Accept 9th Grade students from Browne Junior High School. Explore Public/Private or Public/Public opportunities.
MM Washington HS – Relocation of career education programs to Cardozo and Roosevelt high schools; Identify long term uses.
Middle Schools
Middle Schools
Table 6E-6
Proposed Capacity
Proposed Action
Current Sq.
Ft.
126,800
215,400
342,200
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
80,000
88,000
168,000
Backus MS
500
Modernization/Replacement
Browne MS
500/50*
Modernization
Middle Schools Total
1,000
* Co-location with special education center
Middle School Planning study with schools in Planning Area D.
Browne MS – Send 9th Grade students to Spingarn High School. Explore Public/Private or Public/Public opportunities.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
Proposed
Tier
3
99
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area E
Elementary Schools
Elementary Schools
Brookland ES
Bunker Hill ES
Burroughs ES
J.F. Cook ES
Emery ES
Langdon ES
Marshall ES
Noyes ES
Shaed ES
Slowe ES
Webb ES
Wheatley ES
Young ES
Elementary Schools Total
Table 6E-7
Proposed Capacity
Proposed Action
320
400
320
320
300
400
400
360
400
450
500
530
475
5,175
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization
Modernization/Addition
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization/Addition
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Current Sq.
Ft.
98,200
69,400
63,900
43,500
63,800
101,400
103,800
49,700
67,200
54,500
103,700
87,200
70,400
976,700
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
48,000
60,000
48,000
48,000
45,000
60,000
60,000
51,500
60,000
75,000
75,000
69,680
71,250
771,430
Proposed
Tier
4
0
2
1
Elementary School Planning Study; Schools included in the study are TBD.
Brookland ES – Modernization Tier 4; Proposed capacity 320.
Slowe ES – Monitor housing activity in this area and review proposed modernization capacity.
Wheatley ES – Modernization Tier 1; Housed at Shadd ES 2004-05
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
100
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area F
Raymond ES
#
#
ParkviewES
#
Bancroft ES
#Eaton ES
LincolnJHSBell Multicultural CDC
%$
TubmanES#
#
Bruce Monroe ES
Cooke, H.D. ES Banneker SHS
Oyster ES
#
#
ddert ES
Hardy MS
%
AdamsES #
$ Ellington SHS
F
#Hyde ES
ShaedES
#
$
#
M
$ eyer ES
CardozoSHS
MarieReed ES
Gage-EckingtonES
#
#
Garnett-PattersonMS%
ClevelandES#
Garrison ES
# ShawJHS
RossES#
%
$ McKinleyS
# EmeryES
Cook, J.F. ES
SeatonES#
# Dunbar SHS
#
Montgomery ES
$ WashingtonSHS
$
%Francis JHS
H
G
Thomson, J.S. ES
#
# Stevens ES
E
%
# Terrell JHS
F
Walker-JonesES
#
C
D
B
Wilson, J.O. ES
$
$
#
Ludlow-Taylor ES
School Without Walls
%
Stua
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
A
Planning Area F
Background
Planning Area F contains 23 schools, representing a wide
range of grade configurations including three different
elementary school configurations, middle schools, a junior high
school and two city-wide and one zoned high school. The
Planning Area F Schools: Facilities Characteristics
School
Date Built or Modernized
Acreag
e
Banneker HS
Bell HS
Cardozo HS
Francis JHS
Shaw JHS
Garnet-Patterson MS
Lincoln MS
Adams ES
Bancroft ES
Bruce-Monroe ES
Cleveland ES
H.D. Cooke ES
Gage-Eckington ES
Garrison ES
Meyer ES
Montgomery ES
Park View ES
Marie Reed ES
Ross ES
Seaton ES
Stevens ES
Thomson ES
Tubman ES
1939/1951
1910
1916
1927/1929/1953
1977
1928/1968
1967
1930/1970
1924/1933/1939/1963/1976
1973
1912/1938
1909/1922/1960
1977
1964/1965
1963
1949/1977
1916/1930
1977
1888/1972
1969
1868/1896
1910/1924
1970
schools in Planning Area F are among the oldest schools in
the District. Fourteen of the schools were built prior to 1950,
with Stevens Elementary School being the oldest (1868). The
average age of the Area F schools is 62 years. Area F has
five open plan schools.
Table 6F-1
Current
Grades
Open
Space
Historically
Significant
Facilities
Condition
Educationa
l Adequacy
Comment
City-wide
City-wide
Tier 0
Tier 2
13.43
9-12
Yes
Poor
Poor
1.37
8.97
2.1
3.56
1.25
2.02
1.51
3.55
1.24
0.52
2.07
3.24
3.65
2.5
1.57
1.5
4.29
0.47
3.61
0.70
0.63
4.28
9-12
9-12
7-9
7-9
5-8
6-8
PS-6
PS,K-5
PS-6
PS-4
PS-6
PK-6
PS-6
PS-5
PK-6
PS-5
PS-6
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Yes
Yes
Partial
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partial
Yes
Yes
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
Yes
Yes
Yes
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Tier 3
Tier 0
Tier 0
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 0
103
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area F
Enrollment
The enrollment of elementary schools in Area F decreased
from approximately 6,956 in 1993 to 5,901 in 2002 (21%).
During the same time period, middle school enrollment
decreased by 21%. A history of enrollment by school is
shown in Table 6F-3.
To understand enrollment patterns it is important to
emphasize that DCPS allows students to attend schools of
their choice if space is available in the receiving school. In
Planning Area F, approximately 53% of the students
choose to attend a school other than their neighborhood
school. Schools that receive more students than they
send to other schools are net receiving schools and often
signify ‘preferred schools.’ Table 6F-2 shows the school
resident attending and total enrollment by school. Overall,
Planning Area F is net sending – losing 6% of its
enrollment to other planning areas.
Three factors may cause increases in enrollment in this
area – housing turnover, increases in Pre-K enrollment,
and higher retention rates in the high school.
The city is projecting thousands of new housing units to be
built on vacant and underutilized land in Area F. At the
same time, there have been several redevelopment
projects throughout the city where older apartments have
been razed and mixed housing is being rebuilt.
The second factor that may impact enrollment in this area
is the likelihood that Pre-K will become universally
available. This would add nearly 700 students to the
elementary schools if the number of Pre-K students equals
that of the kindergarteners.
School
Adams ES
Bancroft ES
Bruce-Monroe
ES
Cleveland ES
H.D. Cooke ES
GageEckington ES
Garrison ES
Meyer ES
Montgomery
ES
Park View ES
Marie Reed ES
Ross ES
Seaton ES
Stevens ES
Thomson ES
Tubman ES
Francis JHS
Shaw JHS
GarnetPatterson MS
Lincoln MS
Banneker HS
Bell HS
Cardozo HS
Total
Resident
%
Resident
Attending
52%
62%
51%
Table 6F-2
2003
% of
EnrollEnrollment
ment
276
24%
497
66%
347
65%
125
522
437
Resident
Attending
65
326
225
153
489
472
80
243
268
52%
50%
57%
209
394
357
38%
62%
75%
419
428
243
227
230
145
54%
54%
60%
385
354
266
59%
65%
55%
622
324
101
326
111
413
731
260
592
375
286
180
59
194
30
203
366
108
277
206
46%
56%
58%
60%
27%
49%
50%
42%
47%
55%
346
413
164
427
283
285
580
395
506
345
83%
44%
36%
45%
11%
71%
63%
27%
55%
60%
670
n/a
n/a
2,074
9,887
324
n/a
n/a
593
4,635
48%
n/a
n/a
29%
47%
321
412
723
814
9,099
101%
n/a
n/a
73%
51%
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
104
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area F
Planning Area F: Enrollment History By School
School
Table 6F-3
93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
Adams ES
323
334
364
407
392
372
316
316
286
299
Bancroft ES
558
548
563
594
592
577
576
534
524
464
Bruce-Monroe ES
486
554
559
593
499
492
467
473
480
370
Cleveland ES
303
316
317
319
368
338
320
279
238
222
H.D. Cooke ES
411
431
444
444
441
490
501
494
426
416
Gage-Eckington ES
358
394
388
377
454
516
510
466
403
364
Garrison ES
Meyer ES
533
579
509
585
548
585
552
609
564
593
506
543
485
550
433
443
384
367
386
382
Montgomery ES
481
511
503
507
442
417
412
395
371
314
Park View ES
481
526
504
506
536
528
478
452
405
366
Marie Reed ES
495
517
501
535
555
514
512
490
480
470
Ross ES
195
217
214
192
206
184
185
179
183
168
Seaton ES
389
386
397
426
468
451
449
446
437
441
Stevens ES
369
376
353
321
331
328
333
331
325
328
Thomson ES
Tubman ES
368
627
366
641
371
703
381
638
353
666
359
653
354
649
335
666
292
674
276
635
6,956
7,211
7,314
7,401
7,460
7,268
7,097
6,732
6,275
5,901
Francis JHS
593
589
504
536
484
457
396
406
421
403
Shaw JHS
910
902
866
776
742
693
590
552
546
534
Garnet-Patterson MS
Lincoln MS
338
442
333
539
318
514
342
465
389
425
352
414
309
394
306
384
317
442
328
397
2,283
2,363
2,202
2,119
2,040
1,916
1,689
1,648
1,726
1,662
Banneker HS
401
419
433
425
441
426
432
429
394
390
Bell HS
632
636
656
666
699
687
662
658
676
672
Cardozo HS
1,250
1,087
964
962
919
779
825
720
771
749
Total High Schools
2,283
2,142
2,053
2,053
2,059
1,892
1,919
1,807
1,841
1,811
11,522
11,716
11,569
11,573
11,559
11,076
10,705
10,187
9,842
9,374
Total Elementary
Total Middle Schools
AREA TOTAL
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
105
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area F
Grade Level Restructuring
Planning Area F requested consistent grade structures for
Grades 6-8 and 9-12 schools. To accomplish this request,
Shaw and Francis JHS would need to send their 9th grade
students to Cardozo, Dunbar and Wilson high schools, and be
prepared to receive 6th grade students from their feeder
schools. DCPS is evaluating the programmatic implications for
reorganization and the timing for change.
Table 6F-4 shows the impact in Planning Area F if all schools
were to reorganize Grades PS-5/6-8/9-12.
Modernization
The 2000 Facilities Master Plan recommended that DCPS
modernize 10-15 schools annually.
The community
committees that attended the planning meetings prioritized
schools to be completed in the first 4-6 years of the program.
The Committee of 21 proposed a capital program that
identified Tiers 0-4 based on the prioritized lists. Currently
most Tier 0 (Cleveland ES; Lincoln MS; and Bell HS) projects
are under construction or have been completed. Tier 1 (H.D.
Cooke ES) projects are completing the planning and design
phase. Tier 2 (Cardozo HS) projects are in the early stages of
design.
As part of the modernization program, DCPS was expected to
‘right size’ the schools to match the projected enrollment,
thereby reducing the total square feet that the public would
maintain. Tables 6F-5 through 6F-7 show the proposed
capacity for each school (revised to reflect projected
enrollment) and the proposed square feet for the new or
modernized building. At the completion of the program, DCPS
hopes to be operating nearly one million fewer square feet.
Table 6F-7 shows that the total elementary capacity would be
reduced to 5,830 or over 400 seats.
Table 6F-4
School
Cardozo HS
Francis JHS
Shaw JHS
Garnet-Patterson
MS
Lincoln MS
Adams ES
Bancroft ES
Bruce-Monroe
ES
Cleveland ES
H.D. Cooke ES
Gage-Eckington
ES
Garrison ES
Meyer ES
Montgomery ES
Park View ES
Marie Reed ES
Ross ES
Seaton ES
Stevens ES
Thomson ES
Tubman ES
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
Current
Grades
Planned
Grades
2003
Enrollment
9-12
7-9
7-9
6-8
No change
6/7-8
6/7-8
No change
814
395
506
345
Projected
Enrollment
if Reorg.
911
317
383
357
6-8
PK-6
PK-5
PK-6
No change
PK-5
No change
PK-5
321
276
497
347
240
418
333
PK-5
PK-6
PK-6
No change
PK-5
PK-5
209
394
357
222
335
293
PK-6
PK-5
PK-6
PK-5
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
PK-5
No change
PK-5
No change
PK-5
PK-5
PK-5
PK-5
PK-5
PK-5
385
354
266
346
413
164
427
283
285
580
310
342
254
340
371
155
391
289
233
498
106
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area F
See Chapter 5 for the criteria for ranking schools. The timing
for capital projects will be dependent on available funding.
Capital and Non-Capital Recommendations by School
High Schools
High Schools
Banneker HS
Bell HS
Cardozo HS
High Schools Total
Table 6F-5
Proposed Capacity
450
800
1,100
2,350
Proposed Action
Modernization
Modernization/ Replacement
Modernization
Current Sq.
Ft.
180,000
98,000
355,400
633,400
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
86,400
153,600
211,200
451,200
Proposed
Tier
0
2
High school planning study to review boundaries and articulation; Schools to be included are Dunbar, Cardozo, Wilson, and
Roosevelt high schools.
Bell HS – Modernization/Replacement Tier 0.
Cardozo HS – Modernization Tier 2; Accept 9th Grade students from Francis and Shaw Junior High Schools. Explore Public/Private
or Public/Public opportunities.
Middle Schools
Middle Schools
Francis JHS
Shaw JHS
Garnet-Patterson MS
Lincoln MS
Middle Schools Total
Table 6F-6
Proposed Capacity
400
500
400
600
1,900
Proposed Action
Modernization
Modernization/Replacement
Modernization
Modernization/Replacement
Current
Sq. Ft.
95,100
230,400
82,700
185,000
593,200
Proposed
Sq. Ft.
64,000
80,000
64,000
96,000
304,000
Proposed
Tier
3
0
Francis JHS – Send 9th Grade students to Cardozo High School. Explore Public/Private or Public/Public opportunities.
Lincoln MS – Modernization/Replacement Tier 0.
Shaw JHS – Modernization/Replacement Tier 3; Send 9th Grade students to Cardozo High School.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
107
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area F
Elementary Schools
Elementary Schools
Adams ES
Bancroft ES
Bruce-Monroe ES
Cleveland ES
H.D. Cooke ES
Gage-Eckington ES
Garrison ES
Meyer ES
Montgomery ES
Park View ES
Marie Reed ES
Ross ES
Seaton ES
Stevens ES
Thomson ES
Tubman ES
Elementary Schools Total
Table 6F-7
Proposed Capacity
320
400
400
320
550
320
360
320
320
320
500
160
400
320
320
500
5,830
Proposed Action
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
Current
Sq. Ft.
59,400
79,800
110,700
37,100
64,000
86,500
60,200
62,200
73,700
82,200
162,700
22,400
65,000
39,500
40,950
66,600
1,112,950
Proposed
Sq. Ft.
48,000
60,000
60,000
48,000
82,500
48,000
54,000
48,000
48,000
48,000
75,000
24,000
60,000
48,000
48,000
75,000
874,500
Proposed
Tier
0
1
2
0
108
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area G
H
G
E
F
C
D
B
Lafayette ES
#
A
Deal JHS
% # Murch ES
$ Wilson, W. SHS
# Janney ES
G
# Hearst ES
# Mann ES #Eaton ES
# Key ES
#
Oyster ES
#
Stoddert ES
Hardy MS %
Ellington SHS$
Hyde ES#
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area G
Background
The schools in Planning Area G are among the oldest schools
in the District with all 14 schools having been built prior to
1935. Ellington High School, constructed in 1898, is the oldest
in Area G. The average age of the Area G schools is
approximately 75 years. Area G has one partially open plan
school.
Planning Area G contains 14 schools, representing a wide
range of grade configurations that include three different
elementary school configurations, one middle school, one
junior high school, and two high schools.
Planning Area G Schools: Facilities Characteristics
School
Ellington HS
W. Wilson HS
Deal JHS
Hardy MS/ Filmore
Arts Center
Eaton ES
Hearst ES
Hyde ES
Janney ES
Key ES
Lafayette ES
Mann ES
Murch ES
Oyster ES*
Stoddert ES
Table 6G-1
Date Built /Additions
Acreage
1898/1925
1935/1971
1931/1935/1937/1962/
1970
2.91
10.44
Current
Grades
9-12
9-12
7.32
1928/1931
1911/1923/1931/1934/
1982
1932
1907
1925/1932
1928/1932
1931/1938/1942/1978
1931/1993
1929/1931
2001
1932/1993
Open
Space
Historically
Significant
Yes
Yes
Facilities
Condition
Poor
Poor
Educational
Adequacy
Fair
Fair
Comment
7-9
Yes
Poor
Fair
Tier 2
3.43
6-8
Yes
Poor
Fair
Tier 1
1.39
3.67
1.49
3.64
3.17
5.92
3.81
2.61
1.67
6.52
PK-6
PK-3
PK-5
PK-6
PK-5
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
PK-5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Fair/Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
New
Fair
Poor
Poor
New
Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
New
Fair
Poor
Poor
New
Poor
Yes
City-wide
Tier 4
Tier 3
Tier 0
Tier 4
The Oyster ES original building built in 1926 was replaced with a new facility, which was occupied in 2001.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
111
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area G
classrooms until a more permanent solution can be put in
place.
Enrollment
Area G elementary enrollment slightly increased from 3,214 in
1993 to 3,274 in 2002. During the same time period, middle
school enrollment increased by 11%, while high school
enrollment remained relatively unchanged.
A history of
enrollment by school is shown in Table 6G-3.
To understand enrollment patterns it is important to emphasize
that DCPS allows students to attend schools of their choice if
space is available in the receiving school. In Planning Area G,
approximately 20% of the students choose to attend a school
other than their neighborhood school. Schools that receive
more students than they send to other schools are net
receiving schools and often signify ‘preferred schools’. Table
6G-2 shows the school resident attending and total enrollment
by school. Overall, Planning Area G is net receiving – gaining
54% of its enrollment from other planning areas.
One factor that may impact enrollment in this area is the
likelihood that Pre-K will become universally available to
parents who want it. This would add nearly 450 students into
the elementary schools if the number of Pre-K students equals
that of the kindergarteners. Due to a shortage of capacity in
these area schools, additional Pre-K may mean fewer seats
available for ‘out-of-boundary’ students and/or relocatable
Table 6G-2
School
%
Resident
Attending
2003
Enrollment
% in
boundary
Resident
Resident
Attending
186
118
47
363
205
513
210
413
147
179
615
110
147
40
41
336
173
420
187
336
112
124
533
98
79%
34%
87%
93%
84%
82%
89%
81%
76%
69%
87%
89%
390
170
195
488
236
543
230
475
412
213
916
424
38%
24%
21%
69%
73%
77%
81%
71%
27%
58%
58%
23%
0
0
N/A
459
N/A
1,140
855
75%
1,444
59%
4,246
3,402
80%
6,443
53%
Eaton ES
Hearst ES
Hyde ES
Janney ES
Key ES
Lafayette
Mann ES
Murch ES
Oyster ES
Stoddert ES
Deal JHS
Hardy MS
Ellington
HS
W. Wilson
HS
Total
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
112
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area G
Planning Area G: Enrollment History By School
School
Table 6G-3
93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
Eaton ES
435
424
435
435
412
401
409
411
401
413
Hearst ES
189
187
179
165
165
184
170
159
171
159
Hyde ES
168
170
185
180
177
171
185
175
159
172
Janney ES
414
412
429
431
440
443
444
427
433
456
Key ES
Lafayette ES
186
585
181
569
203
560
211
517
206
500
202
474
199
488
210
468
215
499
217
517
Mann ES
259
249
215
211
205
216
211
223
210
233
Murch ES
483
502
508
521
533
488
467
474
463
484
Oyster ES
300
307
293
301
307
301
325
328
362
395
Stoddert ES
195
212
206
197
201
204
223
234
226
228
3,214
3,213
3,213
3,169
3,146
3,084
3,121
3,109
3,139
3,274
1,031
1,011
1,038
987
1,022
1,017
888
889
896
960
215
199
202
229
213
232
310
303
355
420
1,246
1,210
1,240
1,216
1,235
1,249
1,198
1,192
1,251
1,380
Total Elementary
Deal JHS
Hardy (Rosario) MS
Total Middle Schools
Ellington HS
476
507
521
511
479
475
489
497
488
485
W. Wilson HS
1,500
1,402
1,397
1,428
1,553
1,436
1,510
1,607
1,672
1,476
Total High Schools
1,976
1,909
1,918
1,939
2,032
1,911
1,999
2,104
2,160
1,961
AREA TOTAL
6,436
6,332
6,371
6,324
6,413
6,244
6,318
6,405
6,550
6,615
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
113
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area G
Grade Level Restructuring
Modernization
Planning Area G requested consistent grade structures and
reorganization for grades PK-5, 6-8, and 9-12. To accomplish
this request, Deal JHS will need to send its 9th grade students
to Wilson High School (tentative schedule 2005), and be
prepared to receive 6th grade students from its feeder schools
(following modernization).
DCPS is evaluating the
programmatic implications for reorganization.
The 2000 Facilities Master Plan recommended that DCPS
modernize 10 schools annually. The community committees
that attended the planning meetings prioritized schools to be
completed in the first 4-6 years of the program. The
Committee of 21 proposed a capital program that identified
Tiers 0-4 based on the prioritized lists. Currently most Tier 0
(Key) projects are under construction or have been completed.
Tier 1 (Hardy) projects are completing the planning and design
phase. Tier 2 (Deal) projects are in the early stages of design.
Table 6G-4 shows the impact if consistent grade structures
were fully implemented within Planning Area G.
School
Current
Grades
Planned
Grades
2003
Enrollment
Table 6G-4
Projected
Enrollment
if Reorg.
W. Wilson HS
9-12
No change
1,444
1,745*
Deal JHS
7-9
6-8
916
850
Hardy MS
6-8
No change
424
500
Eaton ES
PK-6
PK-5
390
342
Hearst ES
PK-3
PK-5
170
300
Hyde ES
PK-5
No Change
195
161
Janney ES
PK-6
PK-5
488
410
Key ES
PK-5
No change
236
244
Lafayette ES
PK-6
PK-5
543
477
Mann ES
PK-6
PK-5
230
208
Murch ES
PK-6
PK-5
475
414
Oyster ES
PK-6
PK-5
412
371
Stoddert ES
PK-5
No change
213
225
* Enrollment is controlled through admissions to special
programs.
In the current fiscal environment, it is thought that ten schools
per year is too ambitious and costly for the school system.
The current recommendation is to slow down the pace to
accommodate modernizing six schools per year.
As part of the modernization program, DCPS was expected to
‘right size’ the schools to match the projected enrollment,
thereby reducing the total square feet that the public would
maintain. Tables 6G-5 through 6G-7 show the proposed
capacity for each school and the proposed square feet for the
new or modernized building. Table 6G-7 shows that the total
elementary capacity would be increased to 3,410 or
approximately 150 seats.
Tables 6G-5 through 6G-7 also show the adopted Tier ranking
through Tier 4. See Chapter 5 for the criteria for ranking
schools. The timing for capital projects will be dependent on
available funding.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
114
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area G
Capital and Non-Capital Recommendations by School
High Schools
High Schools
Ellington HS
W. Wilson HS
High Schools Total
Table 6G-5
Proposed Capacity
500
1,500
2,000
Proposed Action
Modernization
Modernization/ Addition
Current Sq.
Ft.
167,500
271,300
438,800
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
96,000
288,000
384,000
Proposed
Tier
Tier 4
W. Wilson HS – Modernization/Addition Tier 4; Accept 9th Grade students from Deal Junior High School (2005-06); High School
Study to review boundaries and articulation; Schools to be included are Dunbar, Cardozo, Wilson, and Roosevelt high schools.
Middle Schools
Middle Schools
Deal JHS
Hardy MS /Fillmore Arts
Middle Schools Total
Table 6G-6
Proposed Capacity
800
500/200
1,400
Proposed Action
Modernization
Modernization
Current Sq.
Ft.
143,700
91,100
234,800
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
128,000
116,872
224,000
Proposed
Tier
Tier 2
Tier 1
Middle School Planning Study to revise middle school boundaries; Schools included in the study include Deal Junior High School and
Hardy Middle School from Planning Area G; Francis Junior High School from Planning Area F; and MacFarland Middle School and
Takoma (K-8) Elementary School from Planning Area H.
Deal JHS – Modernization Tier 2; Send 9th Grade students to W. Wilson High School (2005-06).
Hardy MS/Fillmore Arts – Modernization Tier 1.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
115
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area G
Elementary Schools
Elementary Schools
Eaton ES
Hearst ES
Hyde ES
Janney ES
Key ES
Lafayette ES
Mann ES
Murch ES
Oyster ES
Stoddert ES
Elementary Schools Total
Table 6G-7
Proposed Capacity
320
320
320
400
320
500
320
320
350
320
3,490
Proposed Action
Modernization
Modernization/Addition
Modernization/Addition
Modernization/Addition
Modernization/Addition
Modernization
Modernization/Addition
Modernization
N/A
Modernization/Addition
Current
Sq. Ft.
49,100
17,400
20,000
43,400
17,400
113,600
21,903
47,700
46,000
17,400
377,603
Proposed
Sq. Ft.
48,000
48,000
48,000
48,000
50,000
75,000
48,000
48,000
N/A
48,000
511,500
Proposed
Tier
Tier 3
Tier 0
Tier 4
Planning Study to revise elementary school boundaries to balance enrollment and school size (timed with the opening of Hearst ES
modernization).
Hearst ES – Modernization Tier 3; Reorganize to serve grades PK-5.
Key ES – Modernization/Addition Tier 0. Opened 2003.
Mann ES – Modernization/Addition Tier 4.
Oyster ES – Develop options to address overutilization.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
116
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area H
#
Shepherd ES
Takoma ES
#
H
#Lafayette ES
Coolidge SHS
$
%
Whittier ES#
Lasalle ES
%
#
#
Brightwood ES
#
#Murch ES
#
%
G
Backus JHS
# West ES
son, W. SHS
H
Rudolph ES
Truesdell ES
al JHS
E
F
Barnard ES
#
ES
C
D
Macfarland JHS
Roosevelt SHS
$%
#Hearst ES
# Clark ES
B
Bunker Hill ES
#
Powell ES#
A
# Brookland ES
Raymond ES
#
Parkview ES
Burroughs ES
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area H
Background
Planning Area H contains 16 schools, including two different
elementary school configurations, one K-8 Center, one middle
school, two high schools, and a special education center.
The schools in Planning Area H are among some of the oldest
schools in the District. Eleven of the schools were built prior to
1950, with Truesdell Elementary School being the oldest
(1908). The average age of the Area H schools is 61 years.
Area H has one open plan school.
Planning Area H Schools: Facilities Characteristics
School
Coolidge HS
Roosevelt HS
MacFarland MS
Barnard ES
Brightwood ES
Clark ES
LaSalle ES
Powell ES
Raymond ES
Rudolph ES
Shepherd ES
Takoma ES
Truesdell ES
West ES
Whittier ES
Sharpe Health SE
Date Built or
Modernized
1940
1932/1960
1923/1925/1927/1932
1926/1928/1962
1926/1993
1968
1957
1925/1959
1924/1928/1966
1940/1961/1965
1932/1938/1956/1970
1976
1908/1926/1938/1967
1978
1926/1931/1939/1961
1958
Acreage
15.07
7.79
8.79
3.44
3.37
5.51
1.41
2.33
2.97
4.87
4.52
2.38
1.69
1.17
1.69
4.82
Table 6H-1
Current
Grades
9-12
9-12
6-8
PS-5
PS-6
PS-5
PK-6
PK-5
PK-5
PS-6
PK-6
PS-8
PK-6
PK-6
PK-6
PK,1-4
Open
Space
Partial
Historically
Significant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
Facilities
Condition
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Educational
Adequacy
Fair
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Poor
Fair/Poor
Fair/Poor
Comment
Tier 3
Tier 2
Tier 0
Tier 1
Tier 4
Special Ed.
119
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area H
Enrollment
A history of enrollment by school is shown in Table 6H-3.
Area H elementary school enrollment decreased from 5,750 in
1993 to 4,607 in 2002 (19%). During the same time period,
high school enrollment also decreased by 19%. Middle school
enrollment has grown significantly with the conversion of
Paul JHS to a charter school in 2000.
School
Barnard ES
Brightwood
Clark ES
LaSalle ES
Powell ES
Raymond ES
Rudolph ES
Shepherd ES
Takoma ES
Truesdell ES
West ES
Whittier ES
MacFarland
MS
Coolidge HS
Roosevelt HS
Total
%
Resident
Attending
Resident
Resident
Attending
574
795
416
369
541
630
614
201
400
644
268
586
218
437
153
214
248
304
314
135
231
400
147
342
38%
55%
37%
58%
46%
48%
51%
67%
58%
62%
55%
58%
742
795
1,461
442
402
523
60%
51%
36%
9,036
4,510
50%
To understand enrollment patterns it is important to emphasize
that DCPS allows students to attend schools of their choice if
space is available in the receiving school. In Planning Area H,
approximately 50% of the students choose to attend a school
other than their neighborhood school. Schools that receive
more students than they send to other schools are net
% of
2003
receiving schools and often signify ‘preferred schools’. Table
EnrollEnroll6H-2 shows the school resident attending and total
ment
ment
Resident
enrollment by school. Overall, Planning Area H is net
sending – losing 19% of its enrollment to other planning
338
64%
areas.
465
94%
280
302
318
403
488
351
426
422
284
433
55%
71%
78%
75%
64%
38%
54%
95%
52%
79%
636
797
793
69%
50%
66%
6736
67%
Table 6H-2
Two factors may cause increases in enrollment in this area –
increases in Pre-K enrollment, and higher retention rates in
the high school.
The first factor that may impact enrollment in this area is the
likelihood that Pre-K will become universally available to
parents who want it. This would add nearly 550 students into
the elementary schools if the number of Pre-K students
equals that of the kindergarteners.
Second, high school reform efforts and programmatic
changes at Planning Area H high schools may encourage
more students to choose these high schools and may also
encourage better retention rates in the upper grades. This
may increase high school enrollment by 10-15% over the
next 10 years.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
120
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area H
Planning Area H: Enrollment History By School
School
Table 6H-3
93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
Barnard ES
562
555
595
646
633
520
529
380
327
357
Brightwood ES
569
557
515
504
498
487
482
529
503
495
Clark ES
387
372
332
330
403
342
313
331
298
288
LaSalle ES
444
442
469
446
439
389
369
334
309
286
Powell ES
Raymond ES
279
740
294
715
279
625
287
568
309
632
310
606
323
627
334
524
322
491
301
454
Rudolph ES
543
544
514
473
524
514
471
534
538
531
Shepherd ES
444
437
424
388
372
335
360
356
354
356
Takoma ES
551
557
542
570
592
534
446
447
445
467
Truesdell ES
443
500
473
491
505
391
410
477
477
458
West ES
432
420
402
392
392
362
327
338
309
297
Whittier ES
497
437
434
428
491
475
492
484
490
467
5,891
5,830
5,604
5,523
5,790
5,265
5,149
5,068
4,863
4,757
264
342
433
420
406
357
412
577
671
688
264
342
433
420
406
357
412
577
671
688
780
900
930
927
1,026
977
1,064
916
843
822
Roosevelt HS
1,272
1,109
898
808
834
753
703
749
821
847
Total High Schools
2,052
2,009
1,828
1,735
1,860
1,730
1,767
1665
1,664
1,669
Sharpe Health
300
240
253
206
180
176
201
200
222
223
Total Other Schools
300
240
253
206
180
176
201
200
222
223
8,507
8,421
8,118
7,884
8,236
7,528
7,529
6,761
7,420
7,337
Total Elementary
MacFarland MS
Total Middle Schools
Coolidge HS
AREA TOTAL
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
121
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area H
Grade Level Restructuring
This Planning area expressed an interest in retaining Grades
PS/PK- 6 at the elementary schools where now available. As
part of the District’s high school reform effort, junior high
schools that are serving 9th grade students will be sending
these students to a high school in the Planning Area. This will
affect enrollment at high schools in this area as they receive
students from schools other than MacFarland MS.
Table 6H-4 shows the impact if all 9th grade students where
assigned to the high schools.
School
Current
Grades
Coolidge HS
9-12
Roosevelt HS
9-12
Planned
Grades
No
change
No
change
Projected
2003-04
Enrollment
Table 6H-4
Enrollment
After
Reorg.
797
968
793
992
Middle School Capacity
This cluster requested additional mid-level school capacity.
Based on the projected enrollment for this area and the current
plans for middle and elementary school grade configurations,
staff is recommending that additional capacity be provided at
MacFarland Middle School (+200 seats) and Takoma Park
PK-8 (+200 seats). Staff will work with these schools to
identify the implication of these recommendations for facilities.
Modernization
The 2000 Facilities Master Plan recommended that DCPS
modernize 10 schools annually. The community committees
that attended the planning meetings prioritized schools to be
completed in the first 4-6 years of the program. The
Committee of 21 proposed a capital program that identified
Tiers 0-4 based on the prioritized lists. Currently most Tier 0
(Barnard) projects are under construction or have been
completed. Tier 1 (Brightwood) projects are completing the
planning and design phase. Tier 2 (MacFarland) projects are
in the early stages of design.
As part of the modernization program, DCPS was expected to
‘right size’ the schools to match the projected enrollment,
thereby reducing the total square feet that the public would
maintain. Tables 6H-5 through 6H-7 show the proposed
capacity for each school (revised to reflect projected
enrollment) and the proposed square feet for the new or
modernized building.
See Chapter 5 for the criteria for ranking schools. The timing
for capital projects will be dependent on available funding.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
122
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area H
Capital and Non-Capital Recommendations by School
High Schools
High Schools
Coolidge HS
Roosevelt HS
High Schools Total
Table 6H-5
Proposed Capacity
1,000
1,000
2,000
Proposed Action
Modernization
Modernization
Current Sq.
Ft.
271,300
331,900
603,200
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
192,000
192,000
384,000
Proposed
Tier
Tier 3
Roosevelt HS – Modernization Tier 3; Accept 9th Grades from area junior high schools; High School Study to review boundaries and
articulation; Schools to be included are Dunbar, Cardozo, Wilson and Roosevelt high schools.
Middle Schools
Middle Schools
MacFarland MS
Middle Schools Total
Table 6H-6
Proposed Capacity
600
700
Proposed Action
Modernization
Current Sq.
Ft.
110,000
Proposed Sq.
Ft.
112,000
Proposed
Tier
2
Middle School Planning Study to revise school boundaries; Schools included in the study include Deal Junior High School and Hardy
Middle School from Planning Area G; Francis Junior High School from Planning Area F; and MacFarland Middle School and Takoma
(K-8) Educational Center from Planning Area H.
MacFarland MS – Modernization Tier 2; Master Plan classroom addition.
Takoma PK-8 – Increase middle school capacity by 200.
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
123
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”
Planning Area H
Elementary Schools
Elementary Schools
Barnard ES
Brightwood ES
Clark ES
LaSalle ES
Powell ES
Raymond ES
Rudolph ES
Shepherd ES
Takoma ES
Truesdell ES
West ES
Whittier ES
Sharpe Health School
Elementary Schools Total
Table 6H-7
Proposed Capacity
520
550
320
320
320
400
500
400
450/350
450
320
450
200
5,250
Proposed Action
Replacement
Modernization/Addition
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization/Addition
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Modernization
Current
Sq. Ft.
67,000
40,000
53,800
63,000
38,500
73,600
84,400
79,700
119,000
69,600
69,600
66,600
TBD
827,800
Proposed
Sq. Ft.
72,500
86,120
48,000
48,000
48,000
60,000
75,000
60,000
90,000
67,500
48,000
67,500
TBD
757,500
Proposed
Tier
Tier 0
Tier 1
Tier 3
Tier 4
TBD
Barnard ES – Modernization/Replacement Tier 0.
Brightwood ES – Modernization/Addition Tier 1.
Raymond ES – Modernization Tier 3.
Rudolph ES – Modernization Tier 4.
Sharpe Health – Consider Options for Long -Term Use
District of Columbia Public Schools
Facilities Master Plan Update
Fall 2003
124
“Children First…Their Future is NOW”