How To Plan A School District Of Philly

Transcription

1 The School District of Philadelphia Long Range Facilities Plan DRAFT

2 Table Of Contents Page Executive Summary 2 Introduction 4 Analysis Process 5 -Educational Framework 7 -District Planning Areas 13 -Demographics 20 Census Block Group 22 Enrollment Projections 30 -Facilities-Condition 32 -Review of District Capacity 34 -Review of District Utilization 35 -Community Engagement 38 Overall Recommendations 42 Page 1

3 Executive Summary One of the major initiatives under the School District of Philadelphia s strategic plan, Imagine 2014, is the creation of a Facilities Master Plan (FMP) which will be a comprehensive, expandable, and adaptable five-year facilities planning model for the District. The FMP will align with the Imagine 2014 academic priorities and strategies for PreK-12 instructional delivery. The purpose of the FMP will be to allow the District to continuously review its current real property portfolio, to determine necessary rightsizing adjustments, and assist in the development of a comprehensive long range capital plan. Beginning September 2010, the School District of Philadelphia, with the guidance of the URS Corporation Team of Consultants has been working on the development of a long range facilities master plan. The plan relies on various data relationships to determine which buildings should be retained, which should be replaced, which should be renovated/modernized, and which should be discontinued. The plan also allows for parameters for phasing implementation of the plan over the course of five [5] years. The following are some of the key points that should be taken from the four major sections of this report: Demographics, Educational Framework, Capacity/Utilization, and Community Engagement. Demographics There are currently 1.44 million people living in the school district boundaries, this is expected to decline to 1.40 mil people by Projections The male/female ratio is 46.5% to 53.5% and is not expected to change With regard to racial make-up Caucasians non-hispanic, and to a lesser extent, African Americans are expected to decrease in population People with Hispanic ethnicity are expected to have the largest increase in population at 1.6% points by Projected enrollment anticipates a drop of approximately 10,000 students in the next 10 years in District operated public school enrollment. This drop is due to declining birth rates and expansion of school choice in the District. Overall enrollment for school age children is anticipated to decrease only slightly. Parochial and Private school enrollment will slightly decline as well. Capacity & Enrollment The district has capacity to serve slightly more than 227,000 students The district currently serves approximately 154,000 students in district operated schools which leaves over 70,000 excess seats in the District Elementary (K-5) Utilization is approximately 80% Middle & High School Utilization is approximately 60% Page 2

4 Charter School enrollment is expected to increase by about 9,000 between 2010 and 2015 Educational Framework Capacity/School Size: The goal will be to define the appropriate capacity for schools. Grade Configuration: The District houses approximately 25 grade configurations, one goal in this plan should be to simplify this while not prohibiting choice and opportunity. Charter: Charter school enrollment will continue to grow an anticipated 9,000 students over the next 10 years. This plan will address how to manage a Charter School District of almost 50,000 students within the boundary of the District. Program Equity: Programs distributed for equal access will be a major factor when making facility decisions. Special Education, Magnet, Career and Technical Education and other program distribution will be part of the planning process. Utilization The current average utilization across all District buildings is 67% The amount of excess capacity is approximately 75,000 seats Increasing the District s utilization to 75%, 85% or 95% (from the current 67%) requires the following approximate reduction of seats in the District: o To achieve 75% Utilization, reduce 33,800 seats o To achieve 85% Utilization, reduce 41,500 seats o To achieve 95% Utilization, reduce 60,300 seats Community Engagement Throughout the process, numerous community meetings have been conducted to gain input on what the public thinks the District should be doing to achieve equity across the District s educational facilities and to inform the public about the process. In the first round of meetings, the public was provided with insight on the process that would be used to form the master plan and the public was asked to prepare a list of Must Haves ; capturing the view of the public on what every school in Philadelphia should have. The responses fell into three general categories, Education related, Facilities, Safety related and, Comfort and Cleanliness. The second round of meetings focused on clarifying the FMP process, gaining feedback on the decision factors and their use in the process, and determining what the public would consider as successful implementation of the project. The third round of meetings met in a series of six stakeholder community workshops. Philadelphia School District staff solicited public input via question and answer forums on the Facilities Master Plan s Adaptive Reuse and Right-Sizing policies. A presentation was provided to outline right-sizing criteria and options as well as facility reutilization components. The summary below highlights stakeholder questions pertaining to the four key themes listed. A total of 30 questions were recorded during these meetings but were compiled to avoid redundancy for this report. The key themes were: Facility Capacity/Utilization, Increased Civic Engagement, Special Needs Education and School Safety Page 3

5 Introduction The School District of Philadelphia (SDP) is committed to providing the greatest educational experience for all students enrolled in its schools. To ensure this commitment, the School District realizes that school facilities need to be maintained and reflect environments conducive for learning and teaching. SDP also realizes that the highest level of efficiency needs to be maintained for the school district s entire facility inventory. This facility study is more than just an examination of building conditions. It will also take into consideration enrollments, capacities, the desired educational framework, programmatic vision and finances. This process was entered as a proactive approach for exploring long-term facility options of determining which schools to build new, renovate, consolidate, and discontinue. Today, the School District of Philadelphia has 257 District operated schools, including 61 high schools, 25 middle schools and 171 elementary schools. Enrollment in Philadelphia schools for the school year was 154,357 students. That number is expected to decline to 146,289 in the next five years. Operating with 25 grade configurations and significant variations in edcuational quality, equity and cost effectiveness, the District now sees a need to right-size the District in order to provide the best learning options for the students of Philadelphia. The objective of the the School District of Philadelphia is clear; to move to a system of quality schools that promote high student achievement in the most equitable and cost effective manner. The District expects to achieve that through this Facilities Master Plan. The purpose of creating a long range facilities plan is to create appropriate, quality learning environments for the students and all users of school facilities in a District. A facilities plan, however is not only about buildings and condition improvement, it is a combination of those combined with program/curriculum visioning, appropriate utilization for those facilities, community use, and neighborhood impacts. Though many Districts across the country engage in long range facilities planning processes, each District brings its own unique influences and local priorities and visions when it comes to shaping the short and long term dispositions of buildings, as is the case in the School District of Philadelphia. The School District of Philadelphia experiences many challenges faced in an urban environment, therefore the process will require multiple phases in a systematic approach to create a successful long term plan. This plan acknowledges, first of all, the importance of curriculum and programs that are served within the school facilities. The ultimate goal will be to provide facilities shaped around the functions for which they are intended. However, it is a priority in this process to address the excess capacity and empty seats in the District. Analysis indicates 70,000+ empty seats exist within the District. This amount of excess capacity leads to inefficiencies such as distribution of teachers and resources, curricular program alignment, and spending on utilities and maintenance. Page 4

6 Analysis Process Phase 1- Seat Reduction Strategy The District, along with the URS Team of consultants set out to create a plan that promotes efficiencies of utilization within its facilities. Current status indicates approximately 70,000+ empty seats in the District. Corrective action for seat reduction must occur to determine the next stages of planning. Once the number of empty seats was determined and a plan for seat reductions was determined, the following actions/decisions needed to be prioritized in order to make final determinations of where schools would fall in the Long Range Master Plan: what programs will exist in buildings; alignment of feeder schools and programs; what standardization of grade configuration will occur; what corrective condition and/or adequacy improvements will be made to remaining facilities; what are the cost savings for implementing this plan; what are the cost investments for implementing this plan? In Phase 1 the District and the School Reform Commission (SRC) were asked to provide input on the following: 1. Are there strategies to reduce capacities without impacting existing school facilities, i.e. annexes, leased spaces, surplus properties? 2. What will be the mandates for school closure including criteria, community input, and timeline? 3. Are the capacity ranges of school size identified in this report appropriate for the District? Phase 2- Long Range Facility Planning Phase 2 of the process implemented the direction from the District and SRC regarding seat reduction strategies. This stage of the process included high public visibility and allowed an open process in which the input of stakeholders assisted in shaping the long term facility vision of the District. The process proceeded as follows: Community Presentation of Prioritization and Process Prioritization of strategies to reduce number of seats in the District to include (but not limited to): o Building conditions and adequacy; o Enrollment and demographic trends; o Educational Framework; o Program alignment and accessibility including: Special Education Early Childhood Career and Technical Education Accelerated or Magnet programs Empowerment Schools; o Charter School Capacity; o Transportation; o Boundary impacts; o Cost Impacts- both savings and investment Development of Recommendations based on strategies and community input Page 5

7 Phase 2 is meant to create the vision for both short and long term facility goals of the District. The end goals being: GOALS: Address seat reduction strategy; Improve the condition and educational adequacy of facilities; Create strategies that make corrective actions to facilities as conditions, enrollments, programs, and demographics change; Create both short and long term strategies for Charter School presence in the District; Create a standardized approach to grade configuration without jeopardizing opportunities and multi-pathways for learning; Create an alignment of school feeder patterns and program alignment; Provide a plan for the multiple programs that are implemented in schools, i.e. Special Education, early childhood, career/technical education; Provide timelines and milestones for implementation; Engage the community in an open process that invites their input Phase 3- Implementation Phase 3 involves sharing the Options determined for schools, gaining buy-in and approval from the School Reform Commission and implementing the approved changes. This Phase is theoretically ongoing since ultimately the decisions made will require continuous review of process and input as well as dialogue with the community. Page 6

8 Educational Framework The educational framework is the basis from which the District s facility needs will be addressed and provides direction for the development of the facility plan options regarding future building actions of the School District of Philadelphia. It will be this document that provides the guiding principles as the District moves into the future of the long range plan. Based on experiences from other large districts across the country, it has been learned that collaboration between all of the structures within a district is key to the success of a plan. A plan, to be successful, needs to have a life beyond the tenure of the individual administrator. This requires collaboration and a collective buy-in to the development of the plan and the final plan itself. The framework determined by the School District of Philadelphia includes programmatic recommendations critical to its Educational and facility master plan. The following pages identify board policies that impact these plans and processes. Each issue has been reviewed and approved by the District and has provided the planning team with direction in determining solutions for future facility needs. Grade Configuration Grade configuration is an important and often difficult decision that school districts must confront. There are several components involved in this discussion. For example, should there be a uniform grade configuration throughout the entire district or several configurations that are acceptable? What grade configuration most supports the curriculum and extra-curriculums the district is promoting? Should pre-kindergarten programs be housed in a separate, dedicated facility or be distributed at each elementary school? How do we best deal with the two grade levels that are most often problematic; grades six and nine? Uniformity in grade configurations can be challenging as there are numerous supporters of the varied configurations that exist. Urban environments tend to have even more challenges. Currently PSD has twenty-five (25) grade configurations. Though this offers a variety of learning opportunities, it also creates a complicated system to navigate. The number of transitions that students must make as they progress from grade to grade is also a factor in determining the grade configuration. Students in districts that opt to have paired elementary schools where, for example, only two grades are housed per building [example: K-1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12] have many more transitions than students in a K-8, 9-12 district. Recommendations for grade configuration will state a move to a more standardized approach that perhaps allow for the same learning opportunities in a less complicated system. Whether to include pre-kindergarten programs in each elementary school or group the students in a separate, dedicated facility is another issue relating to grade configuration. Proponents of the dedicated facility will cite facility design and ease of program as advantages, but parents often prefer having all or some of their children in the same school for several years. Programs in each elementary school also provide pre-kindergarten students early exposure to the elementary program they will enter the following year. The middle school, on the other hand, was conceived as more a child centered institution with responsive practices such as interdisciplinary team teaching, advisory programs, and flexible scheduling. The middle school also offers a more varied curriculum and more elective or exploratory classes that are usually available at junior high schools or K-8 schools. The trend shift to the middle school concept also reflected a change of the placement of where 6 th and 9 th graders were placed. Page 7

9 Districts most often struggle with how best to respond to grades 6 and 9. Discussions center around whether grade 6 belongs with the younger elementary students or the older middle school students. It is a time of great change in a student s life and can be extremely difficult as the students are dealing with changes physically, emotionally, and academically. The same discussion could be applied to students in grade 9. IMPLEMENTATION The School District of Philadelphia has determined that a K-5, 6-8, 9-12 model is best for them with some variations to accommodate parent and student choice, as well as special programming opportunities. As a result of this determination, many schools will be impacted with grade configuration changes. Page 8

10 School Capacity The capacity of a school reflects how many students the school s physical facility can serve effectively. There are several methods used to calculate a school s capacity. The following methods are a couple of such approaches: core capacity and program capacity. Core capacity is defined as the number of students that can be served by the dining area in a reasonable number of lunch shifts (3). It is not how many students will fit into those spaces at one time; such as the capacity limit posted near the door of each dining room and media center. Instead, core capacity indicates the total enrollment that can be served by those facilities. Core capacity is calculated by dividing the square footage of the school s dining room by a state-determined factor. This calculation is somewhat isolated and may not be the best formula to use for planning purposes. Program capacity is set by the district and reflects an ideal class size for each program. These numbers are based on a pupil/teacher ratio that is desirable for producing optimum levels of student achievement. Program Capacity does not take into consideration the square footage of a specific classroom, only the recommended pupil/teacher ratio for the program being delivered in that classroom. A kindergarten classroom s program capacity is 18, no matter how many square feet the room has. There are three types of program capacity -- Permanent Program Capacity, Area Adjusted Capacity, and Gross Program Capacity. Permanent Program Capacity (or Room Count Capacity) represents the number of students who can be served in the permanent facility based on the programs offered spaces designed for instruction. (Modular classrooms and quads are counted as permanent structures). Area Adjusted Capacity represents the number of students who can be served in the permanent capacity space but has been adjusted based on the size of the classroom. If a room that has a capacity of 25 is supposed to be 900 square feet and the room is 600 square feet, then the capacity is less 1/3 making it have a capacity of 18.5 students. Gross Program Capacity represents the number of students who can be served both in the permanent facility and temporary portables and annexes based on the programs offered spaces designed for instruction. IMPLEMENTATION For the purposes of this study, capacity will utilize a modified approach to program capacity to determine the number of seats in the District. With data received by the District, the number of learning spaces was calculated for both primary (K-5) and secondary (6-12) facilities. It was determined that one of two assignments of class size could be used at each level: PSD Teacher contract numbers which allow up to 33 students per classroom at each grade level, or; Adjusted lower class-size in alignment with recent stimulus dollar implementation which lowers Primary to 26.5 per classroom and Secondary to 28 per classroom After this capacity was determined it was then adjusted to 75% of that capacity to account for other uses of space that occurs in the school facilities such as (but not always limited to): Adjustments for lower class size in Special Education Special programs implemented on a local school level Creation of space not provided in original design of facility such as: teacher work spaces, technology/server rooms, etc. Page 9

11 School Size School size is a highly charged issue on the educational landscape. It is often cited that small schools offer several benefits, such as increased relationship quality among teachers and students, better discipline control, and superior student performance. However, there are concerns that smaller schools limit program offerings, result in budgetary problems, and require an increased number of already limited school sites. The school-within-a-school model has been cited as a possible strategy to allow for the benefits of a small school within a larger environment. IMPLEMENTATION This report lends no favor in this debate, but takes an objective approach to determining appropriate sizes of schools based on factors that most benefit students. This determination is just one of many factors that were used to decide both how to reduce the number of empty seats in the District (phase 1 of the planning process) and then apply the appropriate actions to take on the seats that still remain. As part of the development of the schools sizes, District personnel specializing in curriculum at each grade level were interviewed to create a practical approach to school size in Philadelphia. It is clear that school size is not a boiler plate answer in this District. It is also clear through conclusive research that schools that house students that are in impoverished or lower socio-economic conditions will benefit more in smaller school environments. Recognizing that smaller school sizes may offer less program offerings, but understanding that program offering is not limited or confined by walls. Discussion occurred within the District over several days as to what is the appropriate school size for each grade level. The following are the results of those meetings. Elementary Effective grade level teaming will be important to the success of each child. As students enter elementary schools there is a wide spectrum of knowledge or learning levels, and the increasing practice of differentiated teaching delivery adds to the level of resources needed to deliver an effective program. Therefore it is important to provide a variety of teacher resources and skill sets for each grade level. The appropriate number of teachers at each grade level will lead to the overall staffing of the school, ultimately determining the size of the school. Middle Schools The middle school model is shaped around the ability for team teaching allowing for multiple subject areas to be housed in smaller learning communities centered on grade groupings of 100 to 150 students. Size of middle schools will be determined by the effective number of teams located in a specific building. In order to meet the objectives stated here, the School District of Philadelphia has determined that the optimal size for middle schools in the region is approximately 600 to 800 students. K-8 Schools The implementation of K-8 schools in urban centers around the country has caused much debate with the focus on the impact of middle grades students at the center of this debate. Research (and debate) indicates that there are benefits and challenges provided by a K-8 configuration. For Philadelphia specifically the K-8 model has provided a long-term home for students and parents in which the student generally is able to remain in the same environment for up to nine (9) years. This has allowed parents and students to become more engaged in their specific building as long lasting relationships are built. However, the challenge has been at the middle school level, because of the number of students enrolled, access to certain Page 10

12 programs and space types are more limited than a traditional middle school program, possibly limiting students access to exploratory or elective classes normally offered with larger enrollments. Although the District understands that the K-8 model presents some challenges, it has also seen the advantages of this model in certain settings and thus has considered it in its final grade configurations. In order to meet the objectives stated here, the School District of Philadelphia has determined that the optimal size for K-8 schools in the region is approximately 450 to 800 students. High Schools High school size will vary in a district as large as Philadelphia. There are many debates in favor of small high schools and certainly resources can be better allocated within certain ranges of sizes. For the smaller school structures, this may mean that some schools house more students, but the school-within-a-school approach should be implemented. In order to meet the objectives stated here, the School District of Philadelphia has determined that the optimal size for High Schools in the region is approximately 1,000 to 1,200 students. Page 11

13 Charter Schools In developing a facility plan, charter student enrollment will have a major impact regarding building new schools or adding to existing facilities. It was important to determine where charter school students were coming from and how many students will ultimately be taken from the public school population. Additionally, it was vital to determine where the charter schools might exist within the District. Although charter school location and enrollment create major district facility planning challenges, additional considerations further exacerbate the entire process. The number of charter schools within the district is not an absolute. Local authority could increase the number of allowable charters throughout the District. Lack of a dedicated revenue stream for capital outlay and increasing costs associated with operating a school could conceivably compel some charter schools to close, forcing a return of their students to district schools. The inability of a charter school to meet the performance goals of their charter school agreement would necessitate termination of the charter, again forcing a return of their student population to district schools. Implementation The growth of Charter Schools in Philadelphia is as large as any urban district in the country. As population shifts, enrollments decline and the demand for multiple learning opportunities increase, this trend will continue. The unique challenge for Philadelphia will be what is the point of either saturation of charter schools or the ability to provide effect charter programs? Charter schools are beginning to be more selective in the facilities that will be offered to them through consolidation. Many of the schools that are closed are either too large for the charter purpose or in a condition that is felt not suitable for the program. Also, charter programs may not want to expand, explained by the fact that their effectiveness comes in the limited enrollment allowing for a more focused approach. Finally, the Charter initiative in Philadelphia has been provided enough background to realize the importance of quality charter offerings and will become more selective as to what new charter programs will come into the District. Charter grade configurations are just as complex as the School District of Philadelphia. Last year, the School Reform Commission (SRC) granted one year grade and enrollment modifications. Because of the small number, some schools chose to add students to their current population, rather than expand grades. The current charter program capacity is approximately 39,700 for K-12 with enrollment at approximately 36,000 students. Though it is understood that the charter network would like to grow, there are limitations such as availability of learning environments, charter initiatives that do not want to grow, and possible limited availability of new quality/effective charters. Page 12

14 District Planning Areas Due to the number of schools and the large enrollment of the School District of Philadelphia the planning process will divide the District into six smaller manageable planning areas. These planning areas were determined by the City of Philadelphia s eighteen *18+ city planning areas. The eighteen planning areas were then grouped in to larger planning areas to create a greater number of options for long and short term facility decisions. The six planning areas are: North-Central, Northeast, Northwest, South-Central, Southwest, and West. This will provide the opportunity to examine the facility needs of a geographic area and work collaboratively with community members to formulate options and recommendations for schools. The six planning areas are outlined in the adjacent map and defined on the next several pages. Page 13

15 North-Central Planning Area City Planning Areas 1, 7, & 9 Area 1 Area 7 Area 9 Elementary Schools Elementary Schools Elementary Schools Barton, Clara Allen, Ethel D. Adaire, Alexander Bethune, Mary McLeod Blaine, James G. Bridesburg Cayuga Dick, William Brown, Henry A. Cleveland, Grover Duckrey, Tanner Hackett, Horatio B. Clymer, George Dunbar, Paul Laurence Richmond Cramp, William Ferguson, Joseph Webster, John H. deburgos, Julia Gideon, Edward Willard (replacement) Elkin, Lewis Harrison, William Willard (old, closed) Fairhill Hartranft, John F. Feltonville Hunter, William H. Feltonville Int. School Kelley, William D. Hopkinson, Francis Ludlow, James R. Juniata Park Academy McKinley, William Kenderton Meade, General George G. McClure, Alexander K. Moffet, John Munoz-Marin, Luis Morris, Robert Peirce, Thomas M. Pratt, Anna Potter-Thomas Reynolds, General John Sheppard, Isaac Stanton, M. Hall Sheridan, Philip H. Welsh, John Steel, Edward Wright, Richard Taylor, Bayard Whittier, John Middle Schools Middle Schools Middle Schools Alternative Ed. Regional Ctr. FitzSimons, Thomas AMY at James Martin Clemente, Roberto Walton, Rudolph S. Conwell, James Feltonville SAS (Closed) Jones, John Paul Gillespie, Elizabeth Duane Penn Treaty (CLOSED) Muhr, Simon Sheridan West Rhodes, E. Washington. High Schools Boone, Daniel High Schools Carver, George Washington High Schools Edison, Thomas A. Dobbins, Murrell (AVTS) Carroll, Charles Gratz, Simon Elverson, James Douglas, Stephen A. Randolph Skills Center Kensington (CAPA) Kensington HS Penn, William Kensington for Culinary Arts Strawberry Mansion Kensington Urban Ed Acad Vaux, Roberts Mastbaum, Jules E. (AVTS) Page 14

16 Northeast Planning Area City Planning Areas 4, 13, 14, 16, & 18 Area 4 Area 13 Area 14 Elementary Schools Elementary Schools Elementary Schools Allen, Ethan Comly, Watson Carnell, Laura H. Brown, Joseph H. Frank, Anne Creighton, Thomas Disston, Hamilton Greenberg, Joseph Edmunds, Henry R. Forrest, Edwin Loesche, William H. Franklin, Benjamin Lawton, Henry Mayfair Marshall, John Smedley, Franklin Spruance, Gilbert Stearne, Allen M. Sullivan, James J. Ziegler, William H. Middle Schools Middle Schools Middle Schools Meehan, Austin Baldi, C.C.A. Harding, Warren G. High Schools High Schools High Schools Lincoln, Abraham Washington, George Fels, Samuel Pennypack House Frankford Area 16 Area 18 Elementary Schools Elementary Schools Decatur, Stephen Crossan, Kennedy C. FitzPatrick, Aloysius, L Farrell, Louis H. Hancock, John Fox Chase Holme, Thomas Moore, J. Hampton Pollock, Robert B. Rhawnhurst Solis-Cohen, Solomon Middle Schools LaBrum, General J. Harry Shallcross, Thomas (not district operated) High Schools Arts Acad at Benjamin Rush Swenson Arts and Tech (AVTS) Middle Schools Wilson, Woodrow High Schools Northeast Northwest Planning Area City Planning Areas 8, 15, 17 Page 15

17 Area 8 Area 15 Area 17 Elementary Schools Elementary Schools Elementary Schools Cook-Wissahickon Birney, General David B. Day, Anna Blakiston Dobson, James Cooke, Jay Emlen, Eleanor C. Levering, William Edmonds, Franklin S. Fitler, Edwin H. Mifflin, Thomas Ellwood Fulton, Robert Shawmont Finletter, Thomas K. Henry, Charles W. Howe, Julia Ward Houston, Henry W. Kinsey, John L. Jenks, John S. Logan, James Kelly, John B. Lowell, James R. Lingelbach, Anna L. Marshall, Thurgood Pastorius, Francis McCloskey, John F. Wistor, John Morrison, Andrew J. Olney Pennell, Joseph Pennypacker, Samuel Prince Hall Rowen, William Widener Memorial Middle Schools Middle Schools Middle Schools Leeds, Morris E. Amy Northwest Wagner, General Louis Hill, J.E./Sampson Freedman Washington Jr., Grover Lewis, Ada H (closed). Roosevelt, Theodore High Schools High Schools High Schools Lankenau Central King, Martin Luther Roxborough Girls HS Germantown Saul, Walter B. (AVTS) Olney East Parkway Northwest Olney West Page 16

18 South-Central Planning Area City Planning Areas 3, 5, 12 DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT Area 3 Area 5 Area 12 Elementary Schools Elementary Schools Elementary Schools Arthur, Chester A. Alcorn, James Bache/Martin Bregy, F. Amedee Greenfield, Albert M. Childs, George W. Kearny, General Philip Fell, D. Newlin McCall, General George A. Girard, Stephen Meredith, William M. Jackson, Andrew Spring Garden Jenks, Abram Stanton, Edwin M. Key, Francis Scott Waring, Laura W. Kirkbride, Elizabeth B. McDaniel, Delaplaine Nebinger, George W. PLA South (King of Peace) Sharswood, George Smith, Walter George Southwark Taggart, John H. Vare, Abigail Washington, George Middle Schools Middle Schools Middle Schools Masterman, Julia R Barratt, Norris S. Girard Academic Music Thomas, George C. Vare, Edwin H. High Schools High Schools High Schools Academy at Palumbo Audenried, Charles Y. Bodine, William W. Bok, Edward (AVTS) Constitution Creative and Performing Arts Franklin Learning Center Furness, Horace Franklin, Benjamin South Philadelphia Peirce, William S. Science Leadership Academy Stoddart-Fleisher 2 schools HSBT & PCC Page 17

19 Southwest Planning Area City Planning Areas 2, 10 DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT Area 2 Area 10 Elementary Schools Elementary Schools Catherine, Joseph Alexander, Sadie Morton, Thomas G. Comegys, Benjamin B. Patterson, John M. Drew, Charles R. Penrose Harrington, Avery Lea, Henry C. Locke, Alain Longstreth, William Mitchell, Weir Powel, Samuel Wilson, Alexander Middle Schools Pepper, George Tilden, William Middle Schools Shaw, Anna High Schools Bartram, John Communications Technology Motivation Southwest Accelerated Academy High Schools Robeson, Paul University City West Philadelphia (replacement) Page 18

20 West Planning Area City Planning Areas 6, 11 Area 6 Area 11 Elementary Schools Elementary Schools Gompers, Samuel Anderson, Add B. Lamberton, Robert E. Blankenburg, Rudolph Bryant, William Cullen Cassidy, Lewis C. Hamilton, Andrew Harrity, William Heston, Edward Huey, Samuel B. Leidy, Joseph McMichael, Morton Overbrook Ed Center Overbrook Rhoads, James Washington, Martha DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT Middle Schools Beeber, Dimner Beeber-Wynnfield (closed) Middle Schools Miller, E. Specer Sulzberger, Mayer High Schools School of the Future High Schools Overbrook Sayre, William Page 19

21 Demographics - Block Group Projections Included are block group estimates and projections provided by ESRI Business Information Solutions (ESRI BIS). ESRI BIS uses a time series of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau that includes the latest estimates and intercensal estimates adjusted for error of closure. The Census Bureau s time series is consistent, but testing has revealed improved accuracy by using a variety of sources to track county population trends. ESRI BIS also employs a time series of building permits and housing starts plus residential deliveries. Finally, local data sources that tested well against Census 2000 are reviewed. Data sources are integrated and then analyzed by Census Block Groups. Sources of data include: Supplementary Surveys of the Census Bureau Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Local Area Unemployment Statistics BLS Occupational Employment Statistics InfoUSA U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Survey National Planning Association Data Service Below is a list of definitions as they appear on the U.S. Census Bureau website, to aid in interpretation of the following tables and maps. Family household (Family): A family includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. All people who are related to the householder are regarded as members of his or her family. A family household may contain people not related to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder s family in census tabulations. Thus, the number of family households is equal to the number of families, but family households may include more members than do families. A household can contain only one family for purposes of census tabulations. Not all households contain families since a household may comprise a group of unrelated people or one person living alone. Householder: The person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned, being bought, or rented. If there is no such person present, any household member 15 years old and over can serve as the householder for the purposes of the census. Two types of householders are distinguished: a family householder and a nonfamily householder. A family householder is a householder living with one or more people related to him or her by birth, marriage, or adoption. The householder and all people in the household related to him are family members. A nonfamily householder is a householder living alone or with nonrelatives only. Household: A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence. Average family size: A measure obtained by dividing the number of members of families by the total number of families (or family householders). Page 20

22 The following tables illustrate the current estimates and 5 year population projections based on block groups that comprise the School District and meeting area, indicating areas of current and projected growth. The tables have been developed to determine selected age group projections and projections for household income, family size, and family income. The total population in the School District of Philadelphia is 1,440,119. This population is projected to decrease by 38,773 people, or approximately 3% over a 5-year period. The 0-18 year-old population in the District currently totals 364,078. This population is projected to decrease by 16,398 children, or approximately 5 percent. School District of Philadelphia 2010 Population 2015 Population Estimate Projection Total Population 1,440,119 1,401,346 Ages ,528 91,562 ES Ages (5-10) 115, ,114 MS Ages (11-13) 54,013 55,951 HS Ages (14-18) 100,284 87,054 Total Ages , ,680 Average Age Source: ESRI BIS 140, , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 School District of Philadelphia Population Estimates & Projections by Age Group Ages 0-4 ES Ages (5-10) MS Ages (11-13) HS Ages (14-18) 2010 Population Estimate 2015 Population Projection Page 21

23 Demographics- Block Group Data Average Age; Block Information The data below outlines average age within each census block group for This map illustrates the same data using projections for Page 22

24 Median Income; Block Information The Map below illustrates the same data but with estimates for The data below outlines median income within each census block group for Page 23

25 Population Growth (Decline) DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT In most areas we are projecting declines in population growth with exceptions in several specific areas of the City. Page 24

26 Age and Demographic Distribution DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT Data regarding school age children and their demographic distribution shows slight declines in most categories with a few notable exceptions. Slight increases in the categories: Asian, Hispanic, and Other Flat projection for Middle School age students. 150,000 School District of Philadelphia Population Estimates & Projections by Age Group 100,000 50,000 0 Ages 0-4 ES Ages (5-10) MS Ages (11-13) HS Ages (14-18) 2010 Population Estimate 2015 Population Projection YEAR WHITE BLACK AMER IND ASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER OTHER MULTIPLE Total HISPANIC , ,267 5,744 83, ,547 37,879 1,440, , , ,327 6,100 89, ,390 38,856 1,401, ,087 YEAR WHITE BLACK AMER IND ASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER OTHER MULTIPLE Total HISPANIC % 43.8% 0.4% 5.8% 0.1% 6.7% 2.6% 100.0% 12.1% % 43.4% 0.4% 6.4% 0.1% 7.7% 2.8% 100.0% 13.7% Year Male Female Total , ,135 1,440, , ,157 1,401,346 Year Male Female Total % 53.5% 100.0% % 53.5% 100.0% Page 25

27 Demographics- Enrollment The next several pages provide a brief overview of the enrollment projections and block group projected demographics. Accurately forecasting the future enrollment is a critical component to the development of a long range facilities plan. HISTORICAL ENROLLMENT Over the past five years, student enrollment in the School District of Philadelphia has decreased by 11,207 students in grades K 12. Total enrollment for the school year is 154,357 students. The following graph illustrates the District s K 12 enrollment history from through The following tables illustrate the District s enrollment history from through School District of Philadelphia Historical Enrollment Grade K 12,586 12,252 12,430 13,039 12, ,341 13,074 12,991 13,444 13, ,099 12,571 12,607 12,574 12, ,579 12,645 12,271 12,432 11, ,747 12,376 12,493 12,263 11, ,683 12,328 12,027 12,306 11, ,867 11,964 11,799 11,753 11, ,154 12,058 11,330 11,377 10, ,843 13,167 11,960 11,447 10, ,431 14,774 13,746 13,572 13, ,495 13,210 12,492 13,016 13, ,960 9,593 10,242 10,858 11, ,779 10,961 10,143 11,180 10,866 K - 12 Total 165, , , , ,357 Source: School District of Philadelphia School District of Philadelphia Historical Enrollment by Grade Group Grade K ,035 75,246 74,819 76,058 72, ,864 37,189 35,089 34,577 32, ,665 48,538 46,623 48,626 48,633 K - 12 Total 165, , , , ,357 Source: School District of Philadelphia Page 26

28 CHARTER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Since , the number of School District of Philadelphia students attending charter schools has increased from 27,305 to 35,488 students. Enrollment of School District of Philadelphia students attending charter schools should be closely monitored as it may have a significant impact on District enrollment in the future. School District of Philadelphia Charter School Enrollment Grade K 1,856 1,998 2,180 2,242 2, ,984 2,166 2,276 2,388 2, ,940 2,078 2,262 2,252 2, ,967 1,982 2,135 2,259 2, ,802 1,962 2,083 2,172 2, ,095 2,100 2,259 2,355 2, ,184 2,361 2,519 2,478 2, ,467 2,750 2,828 2,909 3, ,345 2,523 2,650 2,685 2, ,506 3,051 3,272 3,357 3, ,268 2,293 2,767 2,985 3, ,113 2,003 2,033 2,575 2, ,716 2,077 2,038 2,125 2,657 Pr* Pre UG Grand Total 27,305 29,392 31,356 32,837 35,488 Source: School District of Philadelphia Renaissance Charter School was implemented in and enrollment totaled 5,244 students. School District of Philadelphia Renaissance Charter School Enrollment Grade K Grand Total 5,244 Source: School District of Philadelphia Page 27

29 PRIVATE & NON-PUBLIC ENROLLMENT Since , the number of private and non-public students in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has decreased from 324,902 to 287,902 students in the school year. Significant changes in the number of private and non-public students may impact enrollment projections and should be monitored. 350, , , , , ,000 50,000 0 Pennsylvania Students Attending Private & Non-Public Schools Elementary - Resident Secondary - Resident Other - Resident Elementary - Non-Resident Secondary - Non-Resident Other - Non-Resident Pennsylvania Private & Non- Public School Enrollment Elementary - Resident 205, , , , ,541 Secondary - Resident 82,279 82,463 80,207 78,904 76,906 Other - Resident 30,634 30,422 30,300 29,997 27,753 Elementary - Non-Resident 1,532 1,415 1,419 1,163 1,110 Secondary - Non-Resident 5,103 5,212 4,945 4,767 4,713 Other - Non-Resident Grand Total 324, , , , ,092 Source: Pennsylvania Department of Education Page 28

30 LIVE BIRTH DATA Utilization of live birth data is recommended when projecting future kindergarten enrollments as it provides a helpful overall trend. The live birth counts are used in determining a birth-to-kindergarten survival ratio. This ratio identifies the percentage of children born in a representative area who attend kindergarten in the District five years later. The survival ratios for birth-to-kindergarten as well as grades 1-12 can be found later in this report. Data is arranged by the residence of the mother. For example, if a mother lives in Phoenixville, Chester County but delivers her baby in Philadelphia City, Philadelphia County, the birth is counted in Phoenixville, Chester County. The number of live births is recorded by: State County City/Town Census Tract Zip Code Address[not available to the public] Live birth counts are different from live birth rates. The live birth count is the actual number of live births. A birth rate is the number of births per 1,000 women in a specified population group. Birth rates are provided for counties only and for 9 age groups from years to 45+ years. Pennsylvania has experienced the same trend in live births as seen around the country. Live birth counts increased for the first time in several years in 1998 and again in However, a descending pattern resumed in 2001 and reached an all-time low of 142,380 in Since 2002, births increase through 2007 and declined in 2008 and DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT The following chart and graph include the live birth count for the City of Philadelphia. Live Birth Count Year Philadelphia City , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , * 23,379 Source: Pennsylvania Department of Health, Health Statistics * preliminary Page 29

31 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS- PUBLIC SCHOOLS, NON-CHARTER Enrollment projections were developed after analyzing the data collected in this report. The projections indicate a decrease of 8,068 students in grades K through 12 from the to the school year. High School enrollment will experience the most significant decline over the next 5 to 10 years. The following tables School District of Philadelphia illustrate projected enrollments by grade and by grade group through the school year. Projected Enrollment Grade K 13,044 13,413 13,481 13,301 13,015 13,043 13,075 13,104 13,132 13, ,996 13,514 13,894 13,965 13,780 13,480 13,512 13,542 13,573 13, ,326 12,297 12,770 13,127 13,195 13,022 12,738 12,767 12,798 12, ,953 11,874 11,851 12,293 12,640 12,701 12,535 12,263 12,293 12, ,621 11,689 11,610 11,594 12,017 12,357 12,417 12,255 11,989 12, ,232 11,115 11,185 11,117 11,109 11,496 11,820 11,878 11,722 11, ,623 10,600 10,500 10,562 10,499 10,494 10,849 11,158 11,214 11, ,565 9,948 9,937 9,851 9,919 9,855 9,868 10,181 10,471 10, ,546 10,398 9,794 9,783 9,697 9,766 9,706 9,728 10,025 10, ,124 11,828 11,661 10,980 10,969 10,872 10,951 10,875 10,904 11, ,458 11,261 10,988 10,825 10,185 10,176 10,082 10,144 10,078 10, ,121 10,667 9,635 9,411 9,295 8,734 8,733 8,650 8,705 8, ,802 11,525 11,046 9,979 9,745 9,612 9,035 9,030 8,947 8,998 Total 152, , , , , , , , , ,289 School District of Philadelphia Projected Enrollment Grade K ,172 73,902 74,791 75,397 75,756 76,099 76,097 75,809 75,507 75, ,734 30,946 30,231 30,196 30,115 30,115 30,423 31,067 31,710 31, ,505 45,281 43,330 41,195 40,194 39,394 38,801 38,699 38,634 38,985 Total 152, , , , , , , , , ,289 Page 30

32 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS- CHARTER Charter school enrollment projections were also developed. The projections indicate an increase of 9,012 students in grades K through 12 from the to the school year. The following tables illustrate projected enrollments by grade and by grade group through the school year. School District of Philadelphia Projected Charter School Enrollment Grade Actual K 2, ,430 2,498 2,511 2,478 2,424 2,430 2,435 2,441 2,447 2, , ,644 2,671 2,746 2,760 2,724 2,664 2,670 2,677 2,683 2, , ,504 2,679 2,705 2,781 2,796 2,759 2,699 2,705 2,711 2, , ,501 2,532 2,708 2,735 2,812 2,826 2,789 2,729 2,735 2, , ,343 2,544 2,575 2,755 2,782 2,861 2,875 2,838 2,776 2, , ,638 2,671 2,901 2,936 3,141 3,172 3,261 3,278 3,235 3, , ,763 2,902 2,938 3,191 3,230 3,455 3,489 3,587 3,605 3, , ,979 3,040 3,192 3,232 3,510 3,553 3,800 3,838 3,946 3, , ,974 2,901 2,960 3,109 3,148 3,419 3,460 3,701 3,738 3, , ,811 3,863 3,769 3,846 4,038 4,089 4,441 4,495 4,808 4, , ,266 3,474 3,520 3,435 3,505 3,681 3,726 4,047 4,097 4, , ,855 2,940 3,127 3,169 3,092 3,155 3,313 3,354 3,643 3, , ,880 2,855 2,940 3,127 3,169 3,092 3,155 3,313 3,354 3,643 K - 12 Total 3 5, ,588 37,570 38,592 39,554 40,371 41,156 42,113 43,003 43,778 44,481 Source: DeJONG-HEALY School District of Philadelphia Projected Charter School Enrollment by Grade Group Grade Actual K , ,060 15,595 16,146 16,445 16,679 16,712 16,729 16,668 16,587 16, , ,716 8,843 9,090 9,532 9,888 10,427 10,749 11,126 11,289 11, , ,812 13,132 13,356 13,577 13,804 14,017 14,635 15,209 15,902 16,568 K - 12 Total 3 5, ,588 37,570 38,592 39,554 40,371 41,156 42,113 43,003 43,778 44,481 Source: DeJONG-HEALY Page 31

33 Facilities- Condition Building Condition must be evaluated periodically to note system deficiencies. Every building, regardless of type, has multiple systems and each of these systems has a life expectancy (or estimated years of service). Life expectancy can vary with usage, weather, regular maintenance and material quality but there are industry standards for major systems. Average life expectancies should be used as a guideline but not a guarantee of when a system will fail. Examples of average life expectancies based on School District experience are as follows: Boilers - approximately 30 years Typical Roof Structure approximately 20 years Windows approximately 20 years The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is used throughout the facilities management industry as a general indicator of a building s health as related to the various building systems. It is ultimately used to foster decisionmaking related to a building s disposition or to compare the conditions of a group of buildings. The FCI is calculated by dividing a building s Facility Condition Cost, or in this case, a Revised Renovation Cost, by the cost to replace (Replacement Value). Calculating the FCI In 2005, the School District of Philadelphia used a group of experts to conduct an inspection of its schools and determine the low, medium and high priority needs in the building. A dollar value was determined to establish the Original Assessment value. The URS Team was asked to utilize the School District of Philadelphia s 2005 Facilities Condition Assessment as the foundation for the current master planning effort. The costs identified in this assessment were then escalated to 2010 dollars to account for the increase in the costs for materials and labor. Work completed under the District s Capital Improvement Program over the last 6 years was deducted from the 2010 Assessment Costs. This final number became what we are calling the Revised Renovation Cost. In order to calculate an FCI (Facilities Condition Index) for each school it is necessary to have a Repair Cost (Revised Renovation Cost) as well as a Replacement Cost. The Replacement Cost is calculated by taking a cost per DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT Page 32 square foot value based on building type and multiplying that cost per square foot by the overall square footage of the building. The cost per square foot used for this calculation was formulated by taking 2010 RS Means Square Foot Costs per Building Type and applying Local and Regional cost adjustments based on historical school construction costs in the Philadelphia area. Other fees typically associated in the construction of these building were also considered, such as architectural and engineering fees. Once the Replacement Costs were calculated, the FCI was calculated by dividing the Revised Renovation Cost by the Replacement Costs and multiplying by 100. The theoretical values and should be considered budgetary numbers for today s construction market. A further explanation of FCI Levels follows. It should be noted that the Facility Condition Indices do not take into account educational adequacies of the buildings. Educational Adequacy of a space encompasses a review of the schools ability to deliver the curriculum, i.e. Is the design of the space adequate for the type of program being delivered?

34 FCI Levels For the sake of initial planning exercises, the established condition range values for FCIs are as follows: DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT there are 24 schools that have a poor condition based on the 75% threshold and how they align with school types and the meeting areas in which they appear. FCI Buildings falling in the low FCI range are considered to have a low repair value and thus would benefit from moderate repairs with manageable costs associated with those repairs. Medium FCI values represent modernization value and thus would benefit from systems upgrades and renovation of existing spaces. High FCI values often represent a need for either replacement of the existing facility or extensive renovation and reconfiguration of spaces to meet programmatic needs. The reasoning behind using the 75% value as a planning threshold is based on a standard accounting principle known as the rule of 2/3rds. The rule of 2/3rds indicates that when the cost to renovate a facility approaches 2/3rds the estimated cost to replace it, thorough evaluations should be made to determine whether or not renovating the building would be as wise a use of capital as perhaps replacing the facility. Though 2/3rds would be around 65%, the value 75% was used in our evaluation to ensure that buildings with historical significance can be maintained, as well as to accommodate issues that are typical in urban environments that limit the opportunity to build new. For many public sector organizations, such as school districts, it is often necessary to adjust the threshold above 65% to perhaps as much as 80% so the facility portfolio as a whole can be managed effectively with available resources. By raising the threshold, the building managers can avoid or defer extremely large capital construction programs by simply renovating these buildings to keep them functional until further decisions and/or investments can be made. The overall status of the District relative to the Facility Condition Indices is represented in Tables B and C (to follow). Essentially the tables show that Building Condition by FCI Levels Assessment <33% Good Condition (Low) 33-75% Fair Condition (Medium) >75% Poor Condition (High) Page 33 FCI Range Count by Meeting Area District Summary < 0.33* 0.33 > and < 0.75 > North-Central Northeast Northwest South-Central Southwest West Totals: *46 Schools with 0.00 FCI - Indicates no renovation and/or replacement costs FCI Range Count by School Type District Summary < 0.33* 0.33 > and < 0.75 > EC ES MS Middle Secondary HS Other Remedial Disc Special Center Totals: *46 Schools with 0.00 FCI - Indicates no renovation and/or replacement costs Reading the FCI Summary Sheet In the pages that follow are the FCI data of each District operated school; organized by meeting area. For an explanation of terms, please see the Glossary of Terms included with this document. The Summary Sheet is established strictly to provide a quick glance of the school conditions. The Meeting Area is an area established by the School District and the URS Team based on the City Planning Commissions 18 Planning Districts. The objective is to use these areas to disseminate information to the community in a concise manner.

35 Review of District Capacity Defining Capacity Capacity can be defined many different ways, but for consistency we will use the following definition for all school buildings. Capacity is equal to the number of students who can be accommodated in the school safely and in a manner which allows for appropriate academic instruction. To guide us in this calculation we used the classroom count provided by the District and then multiplied the number of classrooms in each building times the number of students which could be accommodated per classroom. Per stimulus funding : Maximum students per classroom (MS and HS) = 28 Maximum students per classroom (ES) = 26.5 For our calculations these maximums are then adjusted downward to account for classrooms which do not operate at the maximum (e.g. smaller classes), as well as the need to use some classroom space for other purposes and to allow for flexibility to accommodate yearly fluctuations in enrollment. We use 75% of the maximum capacity from the formula described above for all our work, and for all the calculations in these tables, graphs and charts. DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT Capacity Districtwide Rollup Complete Planning Area Planning Area 1 North-Central 30,422 Planning Area 2 Southwest 8,235 Planning Area 3 South-Central 11,293 Planning Area 4 Northeast 7,642 Planning Area 5 South-Central 0 Planning Area 6 West 4,845 Planning Area 7 North-Central 28,081 Planning Area 8 Northwest 6,087 Planning Area 9 North-Central 13,976 Planning Area 10 Southwest 13,779 Planning Area 11 West 15,576 Planning Area 12 South-Central 21,651 Planning Area 13 Northeast 7,223 Planning Area 14 Northeast 13,259 Planning Area 15 Northwest 21,655 Planning Area 16 Northeast 6,280 Planning Area 17 Northwest 14,482 Planning Area 18 Northeast 7,914 Totals 232,400 Meeting Area Rollup Complete Meeting Area North-Central 72,479 Northeast 42,317 Northwest 42,224 South-Central 32,945 Southwest 22,014 West 20,421 Totals 232,400 Page 34

36 ,687 12,046 9,853 6,993 30,781 Review of District Utilization DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT Defining Utilization Utilization is defined as the number of students (a.k.a. Enrollment) in each school divided by Capacity of that school. For an entire planning area we can also define the Utilization as the sum of all the Capacities of schools within that area divided by the Enrollment in those same schools. Below we have a table and a chart which outline the Utilization for the six meeting areas across the District. District-Wide Planning Areas Empty Seats The chart to the right shows the quantity of empty seats in each of the six meeting areas as defined above. This type of analysis shows the differing amounts of excess Capacity in each of the meeting areas. A more detailed breakdown of excess Capacity (a.k.a Empty Seats) is shown on the following page. The data on the following page shows this same analysis but split into the 18 planning areas as defined by the City. Enrollment Capacity (Parent) Utilization Including Annex ES MS HS Total ES MS HS Total Annex Complete ES MS HS Total Complete South-Central 8,412 4,181 8,396 20,989 10,749 7,054 14,230 32,033 1,003 33,035 78% 59% 59% 66% 64% South-West 6,210 2,079 3,607 11,896 8,055 5,029 8,043 21, ,749 77% 41% 45% 56% 55% West 5,467 2,878 3,193 11,538 7,783 5,083 5,268 18, ,531 70% 57% 61% 64% 62% North-West 13,105 6,149 9,348 28,602 16,550 10,256 15,086 41, ,289 79% 60% 62% 68% 68% North-East 19,036 8,746 12,069 39,851 16,413 9,762 12,474 38,649 1,029 39, % 90% 97% 103% 100% North Central 20,965 8,690 9,645 39,300 29,948 17,803 20,901 68,652 1,429 70,081 70% 49% 46% 57% 56% Meeting Area Total 73,195 32,723 46, ,176 89,497 54,987 76, ,485 4, ,363 Empty Seats 16,302 22,264 29,743 68,309 73,187 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, ,000 Philadelphia Empty Seats by Meeting Area North Central North-West South-Central South-West West North-East 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Empty Seats Cumm. % of Empty Seats Page 35

37 3,150 3, ,727 5,151 4,986 4,827 2,509 2,007 1, ,729 7,344 8,896 11,689 13,941 DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT PLANNING AREA CHART- BY GRADE LEVEL ENROLLEMENT, CAPACITY & UTILIZATION District-wide Rollup Enrollment Capacity (Parent) Utilization Including Annex ES MS HS Total ES MS HS Total Annex Complete ES MS HS Total Complete Planning Area 1 10,762 3,836 3,484 18,082 14,594 7,741 6,822 29, , % 50.7% 51.1% 62.6% 61.4% Planning Area 2 2,542 1,045 1,857 5,444 2,937 2,318 2,499 7, , % 43.7% 71.9% 66.1% 64.5% Planning Area 3 2,481 1,588 3,582 7,651 3,168 1,853 5,600 10, , % 88.2% 64.0% 73.1% 71.9% Planning Area 4 3,998 1,814 1,800 7,612 3,017 2,451 1,554 7, , % 74.2% 115.8% 108.1% 108.1% Planning Area 5 (no facilities) % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Planning Area ,022 1,029 1,642 1,219 3, , % 43.4% 52.4% 52.5% 51.0% Planning Area 7 5,952 2,293 3,515 11,760 10,604 6,119 8,934 25, , % 40.3% 38.9% 48.5% 48.4% Planning Area 8 1, ,494 3,190 2,200 1,100 3,024 6, , % 65.2% 49.4% 56.7% 56.7% Planning Area 9 4,251 2,561 2,646 9,458 4,750 3,944 5,145 13, , % 63.2% 51.4% 67.7% 65.0% Planning Area 10 3,668 1,034 1,750 6,452 5,117 2,711 5,544 13, , % 36.8% 32.6% 46.8% 45.4% Planning Area 11 4,832 2,152 2,532 9,516 6,754 3,441 4,049 14, , % 69.3% 61.6% 74.4% 73.1% Planning Area 12 5,931 2,593 4,814 13,338 7,581 5,201 8,630 21, , % 54.5% 57.0% 65.7% 63.1% Planning Area 13 2,617 1,423 2,021 6,061 2,571 1,554 2,709 6, , % 93.6% 74.6% 88.2% 88.2% Planning Area 14 5,682 2,881 3,484 12,047 4,428 2,731 3,486 10,646 1,029 11, % 99.9% 99.9% 108.6% 99.7% Planning Area 15 7,925 3,375 5,521 16,821 9,789 4,776 6,686 21, , % 71.5% 82.6% 81.8% 80.3% Planning Area 16 2, ,398 5,075 3,051 1,396 2,373 6, , % 68.7% 58.9% 75.5% 75.5% Planning Area 17 4,050 2,208 2,333 8,591 4,562 4,380 5,376 14, , % 50.4% 43.4% 60.2% 60.2% Planning Area 18 4,009 1,681 3,366 9,056 3,346 1,630 2,352 7, , % 106.7% 143.1% 126.3% 126.3% Total 73,195 32,723 46, ,176 89,497 54,987 76, ,485 4, , % 59.5% 60.9% 69.0% 67.5% 16,000 14,000 12,000 School District of Philadelphia Empty Seats by Planning Area 125% 100% 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 75% 50% 25% Empty Seats Cumm. % of Empty Seats 2, % -2,000-25% Page 36

38 Options Development DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT Decision Matrix A decision matrix can be created to evaluate each planning area (or group of planning areas) to highlight those buildings which have both LOW utilization and HIGH FCI. These building would be evaluated first for consolidation discussions. Each planning area would have a matrix for evaluating ES; MS (including Middle/High combinations) and HS buildings. The largest bubbles represent the greatest number of empty seats. The location of the bubbles reflects the Utilization and FCI of each building. Using this approach we can prioritize the discussion and focus on development of options that most effectively address the issues. In this example you would first consider any large bubbles in the top left portion of the graph. Page 37

39 Community Engagement This process is intended to engage the community in an open process that allows stakeholders input into decisions regarding the long range facilties plan. To initiate this process, a series of community meetings was held in November Phase 1 Community Engagements The purpose of these meetings was to provide an overview of what a long range facilty plan will include. During the meeting attendees were asked to provide input as to what they felt were priorities when developing this type of plan. Please note that these results are preliminary based on the following: DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT "Technology" as well as "Computers" and "Interactive White Boards" in this report. Many of the "labels" used for the "must haves" will be refined to more accurately capture the data that they represent. For example "air conditioning" is listed as a priority in Safety, Comfort and Cleanliness. In the final version of this report, this will likely be renamed "Heating, Cooling and Ventilation". Participants were asked to be visionary. In doing so, many participants spoke more about "ideal" programming than about "critical" programming. For example, you will see that more breakout groups cited "Foreign Language" as a priority than "Math". The fact that participants responded in this manner does not necessarily mean that they would choose foreign language over math if they had to pick one over another. It will be critical to get a stronger sense of actual priorities, as opposed to visioning, in the second meeting phase. RESULTS: Source: Portfolio Associates The raw data source for this report includes more than 750 "must haves". These have been categorized into the roughly 60 labels seen in this table. The final version on this report, will include defining statements beneath each label for clarification. For example, "Cafeteria" is listed as a priority "must have" for Facilities. Some labels are far broader than others. For example, some breakout groups identified "Technology" as a priority while others were more specific and identified "Computers" or "Interactive White Boards". Technology is a far broader category, but since many participants cited this as a priority we have included Page 38

40 The above report summarizes input solicited through a series of stakeholder workshops associated with the School District of Philadelphia s Imagine Great Schools initiative. These workshops featured a 45 minute presentation that highlighted the data sources and decision points included in the facility master planning process. At the conclusion of this presentation, School District of Philadelphia staff gathered public feedback on three key issues: DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT percent of all comments in any of the three key issues. Middle tier themes were expressed by between 5 and 9 percent of all comments. Bottom tier themes were expressed by fewer than 5 percent of all comments. Information about the planning process that stakeholders believed needed clarification Factors that stakeholders believed should be considered as the plan is developed Indicators that stakeholders believed would evidence success after the plan is implemented Phase 2 Community Engagements This series of civic engagement included 10 workshops held throughout Philadelphia, which were attended by a total of 554 people. Participants interacted in facilitated break out tables staffed by a moderator and note taker. The analysis summarized below stems from 59 break out conversations, which were organized to yield comments on three key issues: Information needing clarification Factors that should be considered in FMP planning process and; Evidence that would be needed to prove that the FMP process resulted in a higher quality educational environment for all students. The break out conversations yielded 907 comments. This table summarizes the most frequently expressed themes these comments addressed, and organizes them against the three key conversation topics. Analysis identified 17 themes, which have been organized into three tiers based on priority level. Top tier themes were expressed by at least 10 Page 39

41 Page 40

42 Utilization Goals & Seat Impact Currently the District s average Utilization is around 67%. This means that for every three students the District is actually paying for enough space to accommodate four students. Guidance from the SRC is required to determine what level of increased utilization is most desirable. We have outlined the impact (i.e. the required reduction in seats) required to reach three different levels of utilization. Those levels are 75%, 85% and 95% average utilization. To achieve these higher levels of utilization requires increasingly larger reductions in the number of empty seats (excess Capacity). District wide Within the District we have outlined the necessary reductions related to each of the three different utilization objectives. Please note: In addition to the reductions outlined below the annex capacity of 4,690 would also have to be either eliminated or offset by additional reductions within the main buildings in order to meet the specific 75%, 85% or 95% targets. Desired Utilization District Wide 75% 85% 95% Grade Level ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Required Capacity 97,593 43,631 61,677 86,112 38,498 54,421 77,047 34,445 48,693 Total 202, , ,185 Seat Impact -8,096-11,356-14,323-3,386-16,489-21,580-12,450-20,541-27,308 Total -33,775-41,454-60,299 Page 41

43 Overall Recommendations 1. It is recommended the School Reform Commission reduce the overall capacity of the District. This study has identified an excess of over 70,000 seats in the District. This abundance of capacity has led to inefficient use of school facilities by spreading personnel resources and programs across too many facilities which allow facilities to be underutilized. Closing/consolidating these schools will substantially reduce operating cost. Many of the schools recommended for consolidation/closure are in need of major renovation or replacement. Schools that are of significant age and/or schools that are considered to be educationally inadequate should be considered as priority candidates for consolidation. Discontinuing these schools will also defer the need for future capital costs. It is also recommended that the District set a goal of 85% utilization across the entire District. This allows the District to operate more efficiently, but will also allow for demographic fluctuations that are likely to occur. 2. It is recommended the School Reform Commission reduce the number of grade configurations in the District. The District currently operates a system that has more than 20 different grade configurations. It is recommended that the District reduce the number of grade configurations to four [4]: K-5, 6-8, K-8, and The number of grade configurations, while providing choice, is believed to be confusing and causes disruption, in that students often enter schools at different levels. Best practices also state that the reduction of facility transitions for students in an academic career is most desirable. Grade configurations for the School District of Philadelphia are often times neighborhood specific, and though communities should have voice in their local schools, the District should weigh the academic, social, and financial benefits when making a grade configuration decision. This plan recognizes that there are schools that will remain outside those parameters and believes that is beneficial to the District and to the community in which these schools serve. 3. It is recommended the School Reform Commission balance utilization of facilities across the District. This plan recognizes though a facility that is underutilized does not always mean that the building should be closed or consolidated. The plan also recognizes that gross overutilization of a facility can lead to shorter life expectancy of systems and programs may be jeopardized due to lack of space. It is recommended that the District utilize various strategies to balance enrollment. These strategies are as follows: Grade configuration change Boundary changes and realignment Feeder pattern change and realignment Academic program realignment, relocation, and/or expansion Career and Technical Special Education Pre-Kindergarten and Early Childhood 4. It is recommended the School Reform Commission implement school capacity standards. The size of schools is a sensitive and potentially controversial topic across the country. This plan does not choose sides regarding the small school vs. big school debate, but recommends that schools be sized appropriately to offer all academic benefits to students. Appropriate levels and types of staffing, programmatic diversity and accessibility, safety and security, and parent access to school are just a few of the factors to consider when making decisions on the size of schools. Page 42

44 Schools should not be so large as to create a sense of anonymity for the student or create an atmosphere that is perceived to be unsafe. However, schools should not be so small as to limit program and resource offerings for students. 5. It is recommended the School Reform Commission implement this plan in phases. This plan recognizes that the implementation of any long range facilities plan will likely cause some level of student disruption. Because this plan is not just about seat reduction, but also centered on making decisions that best programmatically and academically benefit students while minimizing disruption to the learning process, it is recommended that the implementation of this plan be completed in phases. Actions within the phases should be as follows: Year 1 Focus on seat reduction through closure and consolidations. Closure and consolidation should occur at schools that can go to a receiving school that has been renovated and can accommodate the entire student population. A parallel planning process should occur that identifies where new facilities can be constructed that will accommodate two or three schools to one new facility. An additional parallel planning process should occur that creates an efficient academic model, providing for linear alignment of programs, feeder patterns, and grade configurations that will be implemented in Phase 3. Year 2 Balancing capacity through grade configuration changes and boundary changes. The District should conduct a boundary analysis, utilizing geographic information systems applications that allow for comprehensive planning of boundary changes and the demographic implications of each change. Grade configuration changes that comply with the recommendation as previously stated should occur. Year 3 Balance capacity and utilization at the high school level through academic realignment/relocation/expansion, closures, and feeder pattern realignment. 6. It is recommended that the School Reform Commission aggressively dispose of surplus properties. There are potentially 15 properties that are owned or used by the School District of Philadelphia that are surplus. It will not be possible to eliminate all of the buildings since some will be needed for temporary housing of students or other District purposes. However many of the buildings could and should be sold or razed. The District is not in the business of real-estate and/or property development. Consideration should be given to developing an Request for Proposal (RFP) to hire a firm or firms to dispose of these properties. Some of these properties have high potential for redevelopment. Other properties have little value and the buildings should be sold or razed. Continuing to own surplus properties causes a financial drain on the operating budget of the District. Continuing to own and not maintain them allows for further decay and negative community relations. At the same time, care needs to be taken in the process of disposing surplus properties since these are publicly owned buildings and sites. Page 43

45 7. It is recommended the School Reform Commission continue to work in collaboration with the Charter School network. This plan recognizes that school choice is part of the landscape within the City of Philadelphia. The rise of charter school enrollment has had and will continue to have a significant impact on the District. This plan recommends that charter schools should be considered where it is both academically and geographically most beneficial to the District. Where the District struggles to meet the demands of enrollment with little or no capacity, charter schools should be considered. However, where the District can meet the demands for choice and capacity, charter schools should not be a part of the solution. 8. It is recommended the School Reform Commission acquire additional sites for future schools. Based on demographic considerations the District should secure sites or engage a process of identifying future sites that would appropriately fit school facilities, with a priority toward elementary, middle or K-8 schools. 9. It is recommended the School Reform Commission update this plan a minimum of every five years. To keep current, it is suggested that the plan be reviewed every year and be fully updated every five years. This will allow the plan to be adjusted based on unanticipated changes in demographics and building conditions. 10. It is recommended the School Reform Commission pursue community based partnerships. Throughout this study it was evident that through public, private, and non-profit partnerships the educational program could be enhanced and financial and other resources could be maximized. These partnerships might include collaboration with area colleges and universities, private developers, corporations, the military and other community resources. 11. It is recommended that the School Reform Commission implement projects as funds become available. This study will provide an updated listing of priority needs in the District. At the same time this study recognizes that finances to support capital projects are limited and it may take longer than desired to implement many of the projects. However, there should be an overall prioritization of projects that are followed to the extent possible. 12. It is recommended the School Reform Commission seek appropriate funding for projects. This plan addresses the economic setting that currently exists. It also takes into account that it may take longer than desired to implement this plan. At the same time, it is important to have a plan and priorities Financing projects, where necessary, will require significant collaboration between the City, the State and the School District of Philadelphia. Part of the financial plan should include conventional financing such as construction bonds. At the same time, the reduced cost of operating fewer schools and the proceeds from the sale of surplus property should be factored in. Page 44

46 13. It is recommended the School Reform Commission continue to involve the community throughout the implementation of this plan. The community has shown great interest in this process by offering important input at the community meetings and should continue to be informed and included in future phases of implementation. 14. It is recommended that the School Reform Commission authorize the administration to seek professional services needed in the implementation of this plan. To implement this plan, project planners, program managers, architects and engineers will need to be hired, as well as financial and other consultants. Although the District has qualified staff to provide oversight for this long range facilities plan, it lacks the internal capacity to manage capital projects, boundary analysis, and geographic information systems analysis of this magnitude. The School Reform Commission is advised to authorize the selection and contracting with appropriate firms per District policy for selection of services. Page 45