DISTRICT COLUMBIA

2013 PUBLIC EDUCATION 

MASTER FACILITIES PLAN for the 

DISTRICT of 

COLUMBIA 

Ayers sAint Gross Architects + PlAnners | FieldinG nAir internAtionAl

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................1 

High Quality Education for all DC Children ................................................................. 2 

Strategies to Address Needs ....................................................................................... 6 

CHAPTER 1: MASTER FACILITY PLAN VISION ..........................................11 

Background ................................................................................................................ 12 

The Problem ............................................................................................................... 12 

Mission Statement ..................................................................................................... 13 

Vision .......................................................................................................................... 13 

Guiding Principles ....................................................................................................... 15 

Learning from Research and Best Practices ................................................................ 16 

CHAPTER 2: MASTER FACILITY PLAN PROCESS .....................................19 

Project Communications and Outreach ..................................................................... 20 

Developing the Guiding Principles ............................................................................. 22 

Prioritized List of Guiding Principles ........................................................................... 24 

Relationship to Previous Studies ................................................................................ 25 

Geographic Assessment ............................................................................................. 26 

Data Sets..................................................................................................................... 26 

Facility Grade Banding ................................................................................................ 30 

CHAPTER 3: ENROLLMENT, CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION ...................31 

Premise ...................................................................................................................... 32 

Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 32 

Space Per Student ...................................................................................................... 34 

Enrollment .................................................................................................................. 36 

Utilization ................................................................................................................... 38 

Findings ...................................................................................................................... 41 

CHAPTER FOUR: POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT FORECAST .........47 

Premise ....................................................................................................................... 48 

Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 48 

Population Forecast .................................................................................................... 50 

Enrollment Forecast ................................................................................................... 56 

Projected Unmet Need ............................................................................................... 56 

Findings ...................................................................................................................... 56

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER FIVE: FACILITY CONDITION, QUALITY AND EFFICACY .....63 

Premise ....................................................................................................................... 64 

Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 64 

Facility Condition ........................................................................................................ 65 

Educational Facilities Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI) ................................................ 66 

EFEI Patterns to Measure School Facility Efficacy ....................................................... 67 

Findings ...................................................................................................................... 78 

CHAPTER SIX: PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK .......................................93 

Understanding Facility Need ...................................................................................... 94 

Current Fit Need Assessment ..................................................................................... 96 

2017 Projected Fit ...................................................................................................... 99 

1998-2012 DCPS Modernization Equity ..................................................................... 102 

Neighborhood Cluster Characteristics ........................................................................ 105 

Facility Condition and Quality .................................................................................... 108 

CHAPTER SEVEN: RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................113 

Strategic Investments ................................................................................................. 114 

Areas of Greatest Need .............................................................................................. 114 

Strategies to Address Needs ....................................................................................... 117 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................123 

APPENDIX A: SCHOOL LISTING ..................................................................127 

Cover Photograph: Capital City Public Charter School by Drew Angerer

EXECUTIVE 

SUMMARY

2 

HIGH QUALITY EDUCATION FOR 

ALL CHILDREN IN DC 

Every young person deserves a high quality public 

education in a state of the art facility. Great schools and 

great facilities go hand-in-hand. Buildings and their sites 

are the “hardware” that run the “software” of quality 

education programming. Just as advanced software runs 

better on great hardware, great teaching and learning 

are enhanced by great facilities. 

More significantly, great facilities offer opportunities to 

develop teaching and learning approaches that simply 

are not possible in buildings designed for a different era. 

In much the same way as tablet computers have ushered 

in a new universe of “apps,” a new era of modernized 

facilities offers teachers and students the opportunity to 

engage in modern ways of teaching and learning, as well 

as to develop the pedagogical approaches of the future. 

The District of Columbia has made enormous strides 

towards bringing all public school facilities to a level 

of quality that supports great teaching and learning. 

Since 2008, the District has spent nearly $1.5 billion 

and completed work at 64 schools, encompassing 7.3 

million square feet. This unprecedented investment in 

facilities was matched by a proliferation of high quality 

educational options throughout the city. As a result 

of these efforts, more families are choosing DC public 

education than at any point in the past 12 years. 

Future progress in public education requires that 

the District continue to invest in high quality public 

education facilities. This Master Facilities Plan (MFP) will 

help to ensure that such investments are strategic and 

efficient and that we prioritize neighborhoods with the 

greatest need for capital investment. It is, however, only 

a starting point. The MFP will inform the District’s Capital 

Improvement Plan, which includes detailed plans for 

individual schools. 

A PROCESS INFORMED BY DATA AND 

STAKEHOLDER INPUT 

The MFP brings together an unprecedented range of 

data sets to create a comprehensive fact base that 

policy makers can use to make strategic decisions about 

facilities allocation over the next five years. Data was 

collected for all District of Columbia Public School (DCPS) 

and public charter school facilities open during the 2011- 

2012 and 2012-2013 school years, with the exception of 

alternative and special education facilities. 

Data was collected to assess need in five key areas: 

» Capacity and Utilization 

» Population Forecast/Predicted Enrollment 

» Facility Condition and Quality 

» Neighborhood Characteristics (Density of 

children per acre and average travel distance) 

» Modernization Equity 

This fact base was then shared extensively with 

stakeholders and with a working group of District agency 

officials and DCPS and charter school leaders. The 

working group determined priorities for assessing data 

as well as guiding principles for development of the 

plan. Based on these priorities and guiding principles, 

a prioritization framework and a needs model were 

developed to assess need across all data sets for each 

neighborhood cluster.

4 

VISION 

Through the process of extensive stakeholder 

engagement and data analysis with the working group, 

the following vision emerged: 

“Every student in the District of Columbia will have 

access to high quality facilities and school choices both 

within his or her neighborhood and throughout the 

District.” 

AREAS OF HIGH NEED 

To meet the vision of equitable access to facilities of 

quality, it is essential to identify the areas where the 

needs for high quality facilities are most significant. 

The findings of greatest need are categorized by 

neighborhood cluster. The neighborhood cluster was 

used as an apolitical geographic unit large enough to 

include multiple schools (both DCPS and charter) across 

wards, and small enough to analyze the District at a 

level that reveals patterns of need across the city. Since 

the neighborhood cluster has also been used by other 

studies conducted by the District, the findings of this 

study can be considered alongside that other work. 

Neighborhood clusters were deemed to have high 

facility needs based on a composite score from all 

measures of need, weighted and analyzed according to 

the prioritization framework. This framework and data 

synthesis is described in detail in Chapter 6. The clusters 

of greatest need are illustrated in a map on page 5. For a 

full list of all DCPS and charters included in the clusters of 

greatest need, see page 7. 

NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTERS ASSESSED 

WITH THE HIGHEST NEED 

Cluster 2 | Columbia Heights, Mt. Pleasant, Pleasant 

Plains, Park View 

Cluster 7 | Shaw, Logan Circle 

Cluster 18 | Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth 

Cluster 25 | Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park 

Cluster 33 | Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning 

Heights 

Cluster 36 | Woodland/Fort Stanton, Garfield Heights, 

Knox Hill 

Cluster 39 | Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington 

Highlands

ASSESSMENT OF NEED 


COMBINED ASSESSMENT OF NEED 

Determining the Combined Facility Needs 

Data Weighting and Ranking of: 

» Existing Fit 

› Average GSF per Student Capacity 

› Average GSF per Student Enrollment 

› Average Facility Utilization 

» 2017 Projected Fit 

› Enrollment Change 

› Unmet Need 

› Pre-School Unmet Need 

» 1998-2012 Modernization Equity 

› Dollars Spent per Enrolled Student 

› Dollars Spent per Student Capacity 

› Dollars Spent per GSF 

» Neighborhood Characteristics 

› Average Travel Distance 

› 2012 School Aged Children per Acre 



› Facility Condition 

› Facility Quality 

» Magnitude of Cluster 

Figure E-1 

13 

11 

14 

The District of Columbia 

4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

2 

18 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 

22 Neighborhood Cluster 

No DCPS or PCS Schools in Cluster 

High Need 

Moderate High Need 

Moderate Need 

Moderate Low Need 

Low Need 

Public Charter Schools (PCS) 

District of Columbia Public 

Schools (DCPS) 

DCPS Schools to be 

Consolidated at the end of 

2012/2013 and 2013/2014 

School Years 

Public Education MastEr FacilitiEs Plan 

21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

26 

38 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

5

6 

STRATEGIES TO 

ADDRESS NEEDS 

SHORT-TERM STRATEGIES 

The following are recommended strategies to address 

the needs outlined in this plan over the next five years 

through adjustments to the Capital Improvement Plan 

(CIP). Some require relatively small investments for 

short-term gains as follows: 

ST1: Target capital resources in clusters with 

the greatest facility need and large, school-aged 

populations, but low enrollment. 

This recommendation focuses on providing a quality 

school facility for parents and students to choose from 

in every neighborhood. Investing in DCPS and charter 

facilities in clusters where students are choosing to 

enroll outside of the cluster may increase enrollment, 

while alleviating over-enrollment pressures on other 

school clusters. 

ST2: Prioritize modernization of school facilities 

that serve middle school grades in clusters of 

greatest need. 

Currently, the greatest loss in enrollment for both 

DCPS and charters is in middle schools. Building the 

community’s confidence that there will be quality 

school facilities to serve the surge of students currently 

enrolled in elementary schools is critical to the growth 

of the city’s schools. A well-executed modernization 

program for middle schools would send a clear message 

to families of the city’s commitment to quality middle 

school education and may contribute to reversing the 

current, negative trend. 

ST3: Pilot facility solutions to support innovative 

programming. 

Throughout both DCPS and charter schools, many school 

leaders and educators are developing and executing 

cutting-edge education programs in facilities that do not 

support innovation. A fund, available to both DCPS and 

charter schools, should be set up to respond to proposals 

for facility improvements that support innovative 

education programming. These small-scale renovations 

would then be observed and measured for their 

effectiveness and, if successful, would be used as a model 

for future modernizations. 

ST4: In clusters forecasted to have school-aged 

population increases, share underutilized space in 

DCPS facilities with charter schools, community 

organizations and others that use space to provide 

students with access to workforce training. 

Demographic projections forecast an increase in schoolaged 

population. Facilities that are currently underutilized 

may provide much needed capacity in as little as the 

next five years. To maximize the facility asset until that 

need arises, underutilized space could be leased to 

organizations that support the community and its youth. 

This form of co-location may also serve to enhance the 

student experience and provide workforce development 

opportunities. 

ST5: Develop best practices and design guidelines 

for all public education facilities. 

The DCPS Design Guidelines were last updated in 

2009. Since then, the guidelines have been revised to 

accommodate school-based health centers, production 

kitchens in high schools, and centers for teens with 

families. These guidelines should be revised to further

Cluster 

Number 

2 

Cluster Name DCPS Schools Charter Schools Category of Highest Need 

Columbia Heights, 

Mt. Pleasant, 

Pleasant Plains, 

Park View 

7 Shaw, Logan Circle 

18 

25 

33 

36 

39 

Brightwood 

Park, Crestwood, 

Petworth 

Union Station, 

Stanton Park, 

Kingman Park 

Capitol View, 

Marshall Heights, 

Benning Heights 

Woodland/Fort 

Stanton, Garfield 

Heights, Knox Hill 

Congress Heights, 

Bellevue, 

Washington 

Highlands 

• Bancroft Elementary School 

• Benjamin Banneker Senior High School 

• Bruce-Monroe Elementary School at 

Park View 

• Cardozo Senior High School 

• Columbia Heights Education Campus 

• Meyer Elementary School 

• Tubman Elementary School 

• Garrison Elementary School 

• Seaton Elementary School 

• Shaw Junior High School 

• Barnard Elementary School 

• Brightwood Education Campus 

• MacFarland Middle School 

• Powell Elementary School 

• Raymond Education Campus 

• Roosevelt Senior High School 

• Sharpe Health School 

• Truesdell Education Campus 

• West Education Campus 

• Capitol Hill Montessori at Logan 

• Eliot-Hine Middle School 

• J.O. Wilson Elementary School 

• Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School 

• Miner Elementary School 

• Peabody Elementary School (Capitol 

Hill Cluster) 

• Prospect Learning Center 

• School-Within-A-School at Logan 

• Stuart-Hobson Middle School (Capitol 

Hill Cluster) 

• Washington Metropolitan High School 

• C.W. Harris Elementary School 

• Davis Elementary School 

• Fletcher-Johnson Education Campus 

• Nalle Elementary School 

• Plummer Elementary School 

• Garfield Elementary School 

• Stanton Elementary School 

• Ballou Senior High School 

• Ferebee-Hope Elementary School 

• Hart Middle School 

• Hendley Elementary School 

• King Elementary School 

• M.C. Terrell/McGogney Elementary 

School 

• Patterson Elementary School 

• Simon Elementary School 

Figure E-2: Neighborhood Clusters with the Highest Facility Need 

• AppleTree Early Learning PCS: 

Columbia Heights 

• Carlos Rosario International PCS 

• Cesar Chavez PCS: Bruce Prep Campus 

• Creative Minds PCS 

• DC Bilingual PCS: Columbia 

• DC Bilingual PCS: 14th Street 

• E.L. Haynes PCS: Georgia Avenue 

• LAYC Career Academy PCS 

• Shining Stars Montessori Academy PCS 

• The Next Step: El Proximo Paso PCS 

• YouthBuild LAYC PCS 

• Center City PCS: Shaw Campus 

• Community Academy PCS: Butler 

Bilingual 

• KIPP DC: Grow, Lead, WILL 

• Bridges PCS 

• Center City PCS: Petworth Campus 

• Community Academy PCS: Amos I 

• Community Academy PCS: Amos II 

• Community Academy PCS: Online 

• E.L. Haynes PCS: Kansas Avenue 

• Hospitality Senior High PCS 

• Washington Latin PCS: Middle School 

Campus (Decatur) 

• Washington Latin PCS: Upper School 

Campus (Upshur) 


Oklahoma Ave. 

• Friendship PCS: Blow-Pierce 

Elementary & Middle 

• Options PCS: Middle and High School 

• Two Rivers PCS: Upper and Lower 

• KIPP DC: KEY, LEAP, Promise 

• Maya Angelou PCS: Evans High School 

• Maya Angelou PCS: Evans Middle 

• Maya Angelou PCS: Young Adult 

Learning Center 

• Achievement Preparatory Academy 

PCS 

• Center City PCS: Congress Heights 

Campus 

• Eagle Academy PCS: The Eagle Center 

at McGoney 

• Early Childhood Academy PCS: Walter 

Washington Campus 

• Friendship PCS: Southeast Elementary 

Academy 

• Friendship PCS: Technology 

Preparatory Academy 

• Imagine Southeast PCS 

• National Collegiate Preparatory PCS 

• Current capacity significantly 

below 2017 projected enrollment 

• Modernization Equity 

• Neighborhood children travelling 

long distances to go to school 

• Facility quality and condition need 

to be improved 































7

8 

address standards for pre-K space and to reflect changes 

in teaching and learning practices required by the DC 

Common Core Standards. The revision of the DCPS 

Design Guidelines should draw on lessons learned from 

the DCPS modernization program, charter school design 

strategies and best practices in school design. 

ST6: Create environments for professional 

educator collaboration within each school and 

across DCPS and charter schools. 

High quality space for professional collaboration among 

educators will help create physical environments that 

attract and retain the best teachers, and support a 

culture of collaboration and innovation. 

ST7: Establish a consistent and streamlined data 

collection and management process. 

This MFP gathers comprehensive data on the capacity, 

building conditions and demographic changes of schools 

and their facilities. Collecting the facilities-related data 

necessary for the development of this plan showed 

that data related to school facilities is dispersed across 

several agencies, not updated regularly and difficult to 

access. The DC Department of General Services, DCPS, 

individual charter schools, Public Charter School Board, 

Office of Planning and Office of the State Superintendent 

of Education all manage a facet of the data, and each 

agency collects, stores and maintains its data differently. 

This data must be consolidated and updated on a regular 

basis to provide decision makers with the tools to allocate 

resources more effectively and efficiently. 

ST8: Upgrade the main entrance of every school 

that is yet to be modernized. 

The entrance of a school sets the tone for creating a 

positive or negative school environment. An entrance 

that is transparent to the street communicates a 

welcoming and open atmosphere. An entrance that 

celebrates student achievement and school culture instills 

pride in students and the school community. Currently, 

among the DCPS schools yet to be modernized, facilities 

consistently received low scores in a category titled 

“Welcoming Entrance” in the qualitative assessment used 

in this study. For a relatively small investment, the face of 

every school yet to be modernized could be transformed, 

ushering a new era of student and community 

engagement.

LONG-TERM STRATEGIES 

Some of the recommended strategies for addressing the 

needs outlined in this MFP reach beyond the five-year 

horizon of this report. These strategies may demand 

longer-term planning and may require more interagency 

coordination in order to be implemented. However, all of 

them are essential to addressing the systemic issues that 

have led to some of the most acute needs identified in 

this report. 

LT1: Reassess the phased modernization approach. 

The phased modernization approach has successfully 

improved the quality of the learning environments of 

a majority of DCPS facilities in a short period of time. 

Since no Phase 2 modernizations have been completed, 

there is an opportunity to redefine the phased approach 

to focus on facility modernizations in clusters of greatest 

need. Many of these schools are forecasted to have 

strong enrollment pressure; the building systems, access 

for people with disabilities and building enclosures must 

be addressed to accommodate the increased demand. 

LT2: Allow for a school development approach that 

can include additional site or facility uses. 

Where conditions allow, school construction could 

incorporate additional site or facility uses such as health 

clinics, co-working space for startup businesses, libraries 

or senior services. A mixed-use development approach 

would create opportunities for co-location of uses that 

support students before and after schools, and enhance 

learning. It would also help to alleviate some of the 

financial burden of school construction and maintenance 

and would maximize the use of facilities outside of the 

school calendar, such as during the summer months. 

LT3: As part of each subsequent MFP, convene 

a working group of stakeholders to assess and 

refresh the principles that guide the plan. 

The working group was an invaluable asset in the 

formulation of this MFP. In the future, it will be 

important to continue to have a dialogue with objective 

stakeholders representing all aspects of public education 

in the District. 

9

CHAPTER 1 

Master Facility 

Plan Vision

12 

BACKGROUND 

As part of the reform effort, the District has undertaken 

a substantial rehabilitation program to modernize the 

physical infrastructure for our public schools since 2008. 

The District has spent nearly $1.5 billion and completed 

work at 64 schools, encompassing 7.3 million square 

feet. 

The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education 

conducted individual and small group meetings with 

public education stakeholders from September 2012 to 

January 2013 in order to understand the needs for public 

education facilities. Based on this stakeholder input, the 

Deputy Mayor’s office developed a series of priorities for 

schools. 

The stakeholder meetings brought forth a range of 

smart, thoughtful and urgent recommendations. Many 

stakeholders, from students and school leaders to 

community activists, said we need to do a better job of 

allocating resources equitably for all students regardless 

of the ward where a student lives or attends school, 

and regardless of whether a student attends a District 

of Columbia Public School (DCPS) school or a charter 

school. It is the responsibility of the District government 

to provide access to high quality school facilities to each 

student residing in the District. 

Stakeholders also expressed an urgent desire for 

more community involvement both in the planning 

process and in the schools themselves. They want to 

see more integrated services such as community uses 

and complementary services in school buildings. The 

stakeholders also would like the facilities to be available 

for community use after school hours and mixed-use 

development placed in and around the schools. 

Most importantly, stakeholders insisted that facility 

development should follow the demands of educational 

programs and funding should be more flexible. They 

want better oversight of spending and easier-to-access 

financing and facility resources for charter schools. They 

suggested developing a more supportive framework for 

DCPS facility modernization, in that DCPS schools needing 

full renovations and upgrades should receive them at one 

time rather than through a phased approach over many 

years. 

THE PROBLEM 

At present, there is little coordination of school facilities 

needs with expenditures across all public schools, for 

both DCPS and charter schools. Currently DCPS is 

midway through an extensive modernization program 

that has no direct link to a citywide education program 

plan. 

Enrollment is uneven across the District and, as a result, 

DCPS has now completed a closures and consolidation 

plan, which will close as many as 15 schools. Additionally, 

several schools in the DCPS inventory have sat vacant 

since they were closed in 2008 without a long-term plan 

for future use or an interim plan for the reuse of these 

facilities. Many of the schools that remain open are often 

closed to the broader community. 

At the same time, the network of charter schools is 

growing haphazardly. Charter schools open wherever 

they can find space that is both affordable and sufficient 

for their needs, and many remain in substandard 

facilities. Charter schools’ facility needs are not 

coordinated with DCPS facility plans and conflict at times.

Furthermore, charter schools often raise concerns about 

their lack of access to facilities, but there is no single 

District entity or mechanism for collecting information 

about charter school facility conditions or needs. 

For both DCPS and charter schools, the data for facilities 

is inconsistent, inaccessible or both. Facility planning and 

development for schools is fragmented across several 

District agencies. 

All of these challenges speak to the central problem: it is 

nearly impossible to make strategic facility investments 

without a comprehensive fact base for DCPS and charter 

school facility needs and without coordination between 

facilities needs and educational programming. This 

lack of coordination around facilities perpetuates the 

conflict between DCPS and charter schools, and requires 

the District to spend money inefficiently on capital 

improvements to schools. 

MISSION STATEMENT 

To address these problems, this Master Facilities 

Plan builds a decision framework for allocating funds 

efficiently and equitably to meet the needs of every 

student and family, and every community in the District. 

To meet this mission, the plan provides policymakers 

with a comprehensive fact base of school facilities needs 

across the District and a framework for coordinating 

and allocating resources strategically based on needs 

and the priorities of the city and stakeholders. Rather 

than suggesting how resources could be allocated to 

building projects, this plan provides guidance on how to 

use resources for schools based on where they are most 

needed and will do the most good. 

VISION 

Through the process of extensive stakeholder 

engagement and the analysis of the data with the 

working group, the following vision emerged: 

“Every student in the District of Columbia will have 

access to high quality facilities and school choices both 

within his or her neighborhood and throughout the 

District.” 

Critical to this vision are improved access and quality. 

In this plan, access is considered in terms of both 

geography and capacity. In terms of geography, every 

student should be able to enroll in a high quality school 

facility, whether charter or DCPS, preferably in the 

neighborhood where he or she lives. In terms of capacity, 

the public education system must have enough facilities 

to provide all students with access to high quality learning 

environments. 

Additionally, high quality public education facilities should 

serve as resource centers in every community, providing 

programs and activities for those residents with and 

without children in the public education system to come 

together, learn and recreate. 

Quality is considered as both the capabilities of school 

buildings to support top-tier programming and the 

architectural character of the facilities. Every student 

should have access to quality educational programming 

and facilities supportive of these great programs. 

All students, no matter where they live, should have 

access to a school that is an inspiring place to learn and 

represents the District’s commitment to education and 

its pride in its future generations. 

13

KEY MAP 

DCPS & CHARTER SCHOOL 

DCPS & CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITY LOCATIONS 

FACILITY LOCATIONS 

Cluster 

Number 

Cluster Name 

Kalorama Heights, Adams Morgan, Lanier 

1 

Heights 

Columbia Heights, Mt. Pleasant, Pleasant 

2 


Howard University, Le Droit Park, Cardozo/ 

3 

Shaw 

4 Georgetown, Burleith/Hillandale 

5 West End, Foggy Bottom, GWU 

Dupont Circle, Connecticut Avenue/K 

6 

Street 


Downtown, Chinatown, Penn Quarters, 

8 

Mount Vernon Square, North Capitol Street 

Southwest Employment Area, Southwest/ 

9 

Waterfront, Fort McNair, Buzzard Point 

10 Hawthorne, Barnaby Woods, Chevy Chase 

Friendship Heights, American University 

11 

Park, Tenleytown 

North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills, Van 

12 

Ness 

Spring Valley, Palisades, Wesley Heights, 

13 Foxhall Crescent, Foxhall Village, 

Georgetown Reservoir 

Cathedral Heights, McLean Gardens, 

14 

Glover Park 

Cleveland Park, Woodley Park, 

15 Massachusetts Avenue Heights, Woodland- 

Normanstone Terrace 

Colonial Village, Shepherd Park, North 

16 

Portal Estates 

17 Takoma, Brightwood, Manor Park 

18 Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth 

Lamont Riggs, Queens Chapel, Fort Totten, 

19 

Pleasant Hill 

North Michigan Park, Michigan Park, 

20 

University Heights 

Edgewood, Bloomingdale, Truxton Circle, 

21 

Eckington 

Figure 1.1 

13 

11 

14 

4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

2 

18 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

22 Brookland, Brentwood, Langdon 

23 

Ivy City, Arboretum, Trinidad, Carver 

Langston 

24 Woodridge, Fort Lincoln, Gateway 

25 Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park 

26 Capitol Hill, Lincoln Park 

27 Near Southeast, Navy Yard 

28 Historic Anacostia 

29 Eastland Gardens, Kenilworth 

30 Mayfair, Hillbrook, Mahaning Heights 

31 

Deanwood, Burrville, Grant Park, Lincoln 

Heights, Fairmont Heights 

32 

River Terrace, Benning, Greenway, Dupont 

Park 

33 

Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning 

Heights 

34 

Twining, Fairlawn, Randle Highlands, Penn 

Branch, Fort Davis Park, Fort Dupont 

35 

Fairfax Village, Naylor Gardens, Hillcrest, 

Summit Park 

36 

Woodland/Fort Stanton, Garfield Heights, 

Knox Hill 

37 Sheridan, Barry Farm, Buena Vista 

38 Douglas, Shipley Terrace 

39 

Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington 

Highlands 

40 Walter Reed 

41 Rock Creek Park 

42 Observatory Circle 

43 Saint Elizabeths 

44 Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling 

45 National Mall, Potomac River 

46 National Arboretum, Anacostia River 

LEGEND 


No Schools Present in Cluster 

Schools Present in Cluster 






2012/2013 and 2013/2014 

School Years 


14 14 


9 

21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33

GUIDING PRINCIPLES 

Extensive stakeholder engagement included 

approximately 40 stakeholder meetings with City 

Council members, District agency officials, community 

groups, parents and students, and an intensive, threemonth 

brainstorming process with a working group of 

stakeholders. From this public process, the following 

principles emerged to guide this Master Facilities 

Plan. They served as the lens through which need was 

assessed and recommendations were made. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLE ONE: EQUITY- 

FOCUSED PLANNING. 

» Provide equitable access to capital resources to 

meet student needs. 

» Provide both facility and program resources 

where needed and tie these resources to clear 

and enforceable accountability measures. 

» Provide full, not phased, modernizations for 

some DCPS facilities. 

» Encourage mixed-use development to make 

school modernizations and new construction 

easier to finance. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLE TWO: BUILD 

FACILITIES AROUND QUALITY 

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS. 

Ensure school facility design supports educational 

programs while maximizing flexibility, sustainability, 

security and community involvement. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLE THREE: ALIGN 

INVESTMENTS WITH PROJECTED 

STUDENT DEMAND. 

Schedule facility planning and modernization, and 

locate new schools to inspire confidence in a student’s 

continuous access to quality schools throughout his or 

her time in public schools (i.e., feeder patterns). These 

investments should align with regularly updated student 

enrollment forecasts and other trends, including schoolaged 

children population projections. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOUR: INVEST IN 

OUR COMMITMENT TO CRADLE-TO- 

CAREER EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. 

Expand access to quality early childhood programs and to 

workforce training opportunities. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLE FIVE: INCREASE 

COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP 

AMONG SERVICE PROVIDERS. 

Strengthen collaboration among District public schools 

and charter schools through sharing space, knowledge 

and best practices to improve quality. Embrace 

partnerships with outside groups, such as museums, 

universities, community-based organizations and privatesector 

partners, to increase opportunities for students. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLE SIX: DESIGN 

COMMUNITY-CENTERED SCHOOLS. 

Design and operate schools as centers of the community 

that support high quality educational outcomes and 

encourage a mix of community use, services and 

programs. 

15

16 

LEARNING FROM 

RESEARCH AND BEST 

PRACTICES 

The District of Columbia is certainly not alone in facing 

the difficulties of uneven enrollment, more buildings 

than needed for the current school population, an 

aging facility inventory and a desire to provide facilities 

for both public and charter schools. Numerous school 

districts across the United States face the same 

challenges. 

Therefore, this Master Facilities Plan is shaped by 

approaches to school planning and design that have 

succeeded in other parts of the country. These national 

best practices include the following: 

RIGHT-SIZE SCHOOLS TO SUPPORT 

ENROLLMENT AND CONTEMPORARY 

TEACHING AND LEARNING METHODS. 

The average American school is more than 42 years 

old. Most facilities in many urban school districts were 

built at the start of the 20th century and after World 

War II. During both of these periods of intense school 

building, facilities were sized to support growing student 

populations and a walkable neighborhood access to 

facilities. Since then, the school-aged population has 

declined, high school enrollments have decreased, and 

neighborhood demographics have changed. All of these 

changes have left many school districts, like the District 

of Columbia, burdened with too much space overall 

and many facilities that are no longer located where the 

strongest student demand resides. 

In addition, older schools were designed to support 

lecture-based teaching. Classroom size was minimized to 

maximize the number of classrooms in a single building 

and schools had few specialized spaces to support the 

variety of enhancement programs and pedagogies now 

offered to students. 

Today, students don’t only learn from a teacher 

lecturing in front of a classroom. They learn through 

collaborating together in small groups, working on 

independent projects, conducting research and building 

learning skills online (just to name a few present-day 

methods). Therefore, in many cases, District public 

school facilities are facing a problem where they have 

a lot of space, but they have the wrong types of space 

to address contemporary educational models. Public 

school facilities have too many classrooms and corridors, 

and not enough places for contemporary learning. By 

reconfiguring the interior organization of buildings to 

reduce circulation and increase space for learning, many 

schools built during the early and mid- 20th century can 

support 21st-century learning. 

CREATE A VARIETY OF SPACE SIZES AND 

TYPES IN MODERNIZED SCHOOLS. 

Given the range of learning activities in which students 

are now engaged, a wider variety of space types and 

sizes is needed. Planning of school facilities must be 

more nuanced than simply a classroom count multiplied 

by student-teacher ratio. There must be space for 

small group collaboration, project-based work, student 

presentations to groups larger than 20 or 30, individual 

consultations with resource teachers and paraprofessionals 

and, of course, interaction with computer 

technology. 

In addition, there must be places to celebrate student

work, both complete and in progress; and to “think out 

loud” in public on both physical writing surfaces and in 

digital space. All of these spaces are most useful when 

they are integrated rather than segregated, just as 

subject matter is becoming more integrated throughout 

the curriculum. 

Schedules are changing from short, regimented periods 

to longer blocks that allow students to become more 

immersed in learning and engaged in multiple learning 

activities. Students and teachers want to be able to 

move seamlessly from one activity to another. 

Rather than becoming masters of content, students 

are being asked to become master learners with 

deep understanding of key concepts used to absorb 

knowledge throughout their life. All of this learning 

cannot be done at a desk in a 600-square-foot or even a 

900-square-foot classroom. 

SUPPORT LEARNING IN COMMUNITIES. 

Research has shown that students perform better in 

smaller schools. But in large urban school districts, small 

schools in stand-alone buildings, particularly at the 

middle school and high school level, are not economically 

feasible. Even so, the most important aspects of 

these schools can be replicated by creating smaller 

communities of learners, both student and teacher, 

within larger schools. These smaller communities are 

variously called “schools within schools,” “academies,” 

“small learning communities,” “personal learning 

communities,” “educational houses,” or simply “learning 

communities.” Although each of these types embraces a 

17

18 

slightly different approach, all are based on the idea that 

students learn best when they have a strong connection 

to educators, strong relationships with fellow students 

and feel known and valued - all hallmarks of small 

schools. 

Moreover, teachers also excel when they feel known and 

valued, and can collaborate with peers and learn from 

them. A recent study in the Stanford Journal of Social 

Innovation showed a tremendous increase in teacher 

performance when teachers could collaborate with highperforming 

peers. 

The DCPS Design Guidelines call for student learning 

communities in various forms at all grade levels 

and professional learning communities. This plan 

recommends that these communities should be 

supported by the design of the school building and 

given a physical presence. The Educational Facilities 

Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI) measured the extent to 

which learning communities are supported by facilities 

and have a physical presence in the school.

CHAPTER 2 

Master Facility 

Plan Process

20 

PROJECT COMMUNICATION 

AND OUTREACH 

The nearly year-long process of this Master Facilities Plan 

was designed to meet three goals: 

» Assemble a comprehensive fact base for all 

public education facilities, both DC Public 

Schools (DCPS) and charter schools, to inform 

strategic decisionmaking. 

» Seek the input, values and priorities of as many 

public education stakeholders as possible. 

» Develop a regular, ongoing process for assessing 

facility needs and establishing funding priorities. 

To meet the first goal, the Master Plan team worked 

closely with the Office of the Deputy Mayor for 

Education (DME), DC Office of Planning (OP), 

DC Department of General Services (DGS) and 

representatives of DCPS and charter schools to 

assemble previously disparate sets of data into a unified, 

comprehensive fact base. The data collected, methods 

of analysis and limitations of the data are all discussed in 

this chapter under the heading Data Sets. 

To meet the second goal, an extensive communications 

and outreach strategy was developed to notify 

stakeholders of the planning process and provide 

accurate information about the plan. This process also 

solicited feedback on the values and priorities that 

should drive the plan and is described in this chapter 

under Project Communications and Outreach. 

To meet the third goal of a regular process, a thorough 

prioritization framework and needs model were 

designed to assess need based on 14 different measures. 

The needs model includes measures from the data 

available in the current fact base and also outlines data 

points that should be gathered and measured in future 

plans. The needs model can also be used as a tool by 

decisionmakers to regularly assess need and the progress 

of the District in meeting the vision of the plan. The 

prioritization framework and needs model is discussed in 

greater detail in Chapter 6. 

The Master Facilities Plan involved collaboration among 

educational stakeholders for both DCPS and charter 

schools, elected officials, District residents and non-profit 

organizations. The planning team also worked closely 

with an Executive Committee comprised of leaders from 

the DC Department of General Services, Public Charter 

School Board and District of Columbia Public Schools 

who offered guidance, support and vision. Five meetings 

were held with the Interagency Working Group in order 

to review the data and establish guiding principles for the 

Master Facilities Plan. 

STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS 

The Deputy Mayor for Education (DME) engaged 

community stakeholders at the onset of the process 

to disseminate accurate information about the Master 

Facilities Plan, generate dialogue about the plan and 

increase stakeholder investment in the process. Through 

these stakeholder meetings, the DME collected an 

extensive list of criteria that the community deems 

important to facilities decisions. In addition to 

community stakeholders, the DME and Master Plan 

team consulted individual District of Columbia Council 

members at the onset of the process to understand the 

key issues the plan should address and the priorities of 

their constituents.

22 

WORKING GROUP 

The DME organized an Interagency Working Group 

to help prioritize the criteria generated during the 

stakeholder meetings and to provide clear and sound 

advice throughout the plan development process. This 

group was comprised of representatives from the State 

Board of Education, DCPS, PCSB and DME’s Executive 

Committee for Capital Investments (which includes 

representatives from OP, DGS, Office of Budget and 

Finance, and DME). 

Ginnie Cooper, Chief Librarian of DC Public Library, 

chaired the group, bringing her wealth of experience 

overseeing library capital investment projects. The group 

met five times from September to December 2012 

to review project data, consider the criteria collected 

during the meetings and establish guiding principles for 

the Master Facilities Plan. 

DEVELOPING THE 


FRAMEWORK 

Members of the Interagency Working Group 

collaborated to generate a framework of proposed areas 

for the District to focus on over the next five years in its 

effort to improve public schools. 

BRAINSTORMING “WHAT’S THE VISION” 

During the first meeting, the DME tasked the working 

group to think about a grand vision for DC public 

education. The working group divided into three groups 

for this brainstorming exercise and each shared their 

best answers to the question, “What might our network 

of public schools (DCPS and charter) look like in 2020 and 

how do we get there?” 

This phase of the process focused on attaining the 

following outcomes: 

» Identifying a Shared Value Proposition – Through 

small group discussion, the members of the 

newly established and diverse working group 

realized they shared many ideas on what an 

improved DC public education system could look 

like. 

» Sparking Creativity and Innovation – By offering 

initial ideas in a free flow manner, each group 

of stakeholders felt its view point was heard, 

not crowded out. This method also gave 

stakeholders the flexibility to be creative in 

solving a large-scale problem. It helped extend 

their views beyond the current plans and 

processes to focus on key recommendations for 

the future . The suggestions became a critical 

element of long-range, five-year planning, as 

opposed to immediate short-term tactical 

solutions. 

» Establishing a Solution-Oriented Mindset – A 

portion of the discussion focused on answering, 

“How do we get there?” This question helped 

to orient the group towards its objective of 

answering, “What could/should the District be 

doing?” 

» Enhancing Team Dynamics – The small groups 

opened the lines of communication and 

understanding among members who were 

unfamiliar with each other. They helped 

engender trust and respect as a part of 

collaborative decisionmaking. 

CLUSTERING 

Ideas captured from the first working group meeting 

were consolidated and analyzed by the consulting team 

to identify clusters of similar themes expressed by the 

larger group. The themes were evaluated for linkages to 

facilities planning. This effort was structured to narrow 

and capture ideas that a Master Facilities Plan could 

suggest in an effort to improve DC public education.


“What matters most?” “What does the data tell us?” 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

THE LENS THE FACTS 

DATA SETS GEOGRAPHIC 

ASSESSMENT 

FACILITY CONDITION & QUALITY 

Facility 

Condition 

Modernization 

Equity Indicator 

of Need 

Forecast 

Enrollment 

Change 

Mobility 

Rate 

Avg GSF per 

Enrolled 

Student 

Charter 

Facility 

Ecacy 

Survey 

$ per 

Enrolled 

Student 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

CAPACITY 

Avg GSF per 

Student 

Capacity 

EFEI 

$ per GSF 

Forecast 

Unmet Need 

$ per 

Student 

Capacity 

No. of School 

Aged Children 

per Acre 

Average 

Utilization 

Figure 2.1: Guiding Principles establish a framework to view the data in a certain way. 

DEFINING AND REFINING THE GUIDING 

PRINCIPLES 

During the second meeting, the working group had the 

opportunity to review and react to an initial Straw Man 

Decision Framework. The idea behind this decisionmaking 

concept is to develop an initial set of ideas to 

solve a problem and subject them to critical analysis 

and testing. The feedback received during this meeting 

helped to develop a much stronger set of principles to 

guide the next stage of the planning process. 

Working group members collectively agreed that 

“language matters” when addressing a topic as nuanced 

as public education and they requested an opportunity 

“Where are the needs greatest?” 

THE NEEDS ACROSS 

THE CITY 

to discuss and address key topics of relevance up front 

to be sure all participants were starting with a common 

understanding of the issues. As a result, the meeting 

structure was amended to encourage deeper discussion 

among the working group members to define and 

shape the principles behind the Master Facilities Plan, 

from improving classrooms to transforming schools into 

community assets. 

INTEGRATING THE TECHNICAL MEMOS 

Working group members were also tasked with reviewing 

a series of technical memos during their second, third 

and fourth meetings. These reports and maps helped 

articulate the current state of school facilities and current 

23

24 

and future population trends in DC. Working group 

members reviewed and discussed each memo, then 

responded to select questions. They also refined the 

principles guiding the Master Facilities Plan. 

INTEGRATING THE STAKEHOLDER 

MEETING COMMENTS 

Before the third meeting, working group members 

were provided notes from the extensive stakeholder 

meetings. They were provided an opportunity to ask 

clarifying questions and incorporate additional ideas and 

criteria. Specific language was refined to capture and 

effectively articulate the ideas of the working group. 

Finally, working group members agreed upon and 

validated a final version of the guiding principles (see full 

list in Chapter 4). With this task completed, the group 

transitioned into the process of prioritizing the guiding 

principles. 

PRIORITIZING THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES 

During the fifth and final meeting, the working group 

integrated use of a software program called Decision 

Lens into the process to help prioritize the guiding 

principles of the Master Facilities Plan. 

Decision Lens allows multiple and diverse stakeholders 

to come together and evaluate key decisions through 

a transparent process. This software assists with 

group decisionmaking even when it is more strategic, 

subjective or intangible than a simple “yes” or “no.” 

The software applied the Analytic Hierarchy Process 

(AHP), a decisionmaking technique that helped 

participants prioritize the guiding principles. This 

structured and rational framework allows working group 

members to set priorities using a tool called “pairwise 

comparisons.” By placing two guiding principles sideby-side, 

this tool allowed working group members to 

evaluate which principle is more important to them and 

how strongly they feel about its importance. Evaluations 

were marked using a rating scale of 1 to 9, 1 being equal 

and 9 being extreme. 

The working group members’ ratings were translated 

through the software into numerical values used to 

prioritize the guiding principles. 

PRIORITIZED LIST OF 


The prioritized guiding principles can be leveraged as 

a reference point for future decisions around facilities 

planning, including: 

» Identifying geographic areas most in need of 

attention and resources. 

» Determining the types of solutions or capital 

investments to target. 

» Capturing and integrating the perspectives of 

both DCPS and Public Charter School working 

group members within the planning framework.

RELATIONSHIP TO 

PREVIOUS STUDIES 

2008 AND 2010 DCPS FACILITY MASTER 

PLANS 

The DCPS’s 2010 Master Plan builds on the foundations 

established in the 2008 master plan. It sets forth a 

continuous, phased approach to school modernization 

with the goal of tending to every school as quickly as 

possible so that learning environments are improved. 

The guiding principles from the 2008/2010 DCPS Master 

Facilities Plans are: 

» Modernize and enhance classrooms. 

» Ensure buildings support programs. 

» Accommodate emerging or existing feeder 

patterns and enrollment trends. 

» Leverage the school as a community asset. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) 

Based on the 2010 Master Plan, the District 

government began a phased approach to DCPS school 

modernizations to accelerate construction and maximize 

impact on the learning environment. This phased 

approach continues today. The modernization program 

is funded through the annual Capital Improvement Plan, 

which selects projects to move forward and funds them. 

Phase One - Academic Spaces 

The basic areas to be updated during a Phase One 

modernization include core academic classrooms, 

corridors, entry lobbies and rest rooms. 

Phase Two - Support Spaces 

The second phase of modernizations focuses on 

strengthening the support components within a 

school, including computer labs, auditoriums, grounds, 

gymnasiums and locker rooms. These spaces must be 

renovated to support a full range of extra-curricular 

offerings that help create a well-rounded educational 

environment. 

Phase Three - Facility Components 

This phase extends the life of each school facility through 

upgrades to building systems, such as electrical wiring 

and heating and cooling equipment. 

High School Modernizations 

All high schools and other select facilities are upgraded 

through comprehensive modernization, which combines 

all three phases within one effort. 

IFF STUDY 

In 2011, the Deputy Mayor for Education commissioned 

IFF, a non-profit consultant and community finance 

organization, to assess the quality of education options 

available to families in different parts of the District. 

This study analyzed the gap between enrollment and 

access to high performing schools to understand 

where additional capacity in high quality schools was 

needed most. The results of the analysis highlighted 10 

neighborhood clusters of the District with the greatest 

need for high quality seats. 

The study is a point-in-time analysis and provides a 

starting point for looking at student needs through a 

geographic lens. It is not the foundation for the Master 

Facilities Plan, but provides a basis for comparing the 

capital needs of District schools with the areas of greatest 

need for more high quality programs. 

25

26 

DCPS CONSOLIDATION AND 

REORGANIZATION PLAN 

The District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) began 

a reevaluation of their boundaries and consolidation 

needs in November 2012. The DCPS planning process is 

separate from this Master Facilities Plan. DCPS and DME 

have worked together to share data and maintained 

open lines of communication to make effective decisions 

to support quality educational outcomes in the District. 

The consolidations are reflected in the prioritization 

framework (Chapter 6) of this master plan. 

GEOGRAPHIC 

ASSESSMENT 

NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER LEVEL 

ANALYSIS 

The geographic unit for the Master Facilities Plan fact 

base is the neighborhood cluster. These 46 clusters, 

defined by the District of Columbia Office of Planning 

(OP), are used for community planning purposes by the 

District and generally define recognizable neighborhoods 

(Figure 2.2). The Master Facilities Plan relies on the 

neighborhood cluster as the key geographic unit to 

provide consistency between this study and others 

undertaken by the District; to examine the entire city 

at a scale that is small enough to determine meaningful 

differences in the data sets across the neighborhood 

clusters; and to utilize politically neutral geographic 

boundaries and geographic units that are not unique to 

DCPS or charter schools. 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 

Throughout this report, elementary schools in the DCPS 

and charter school inventory are used for comparison 

because they are represented more evenly throughout 

the District, their capacity is more consistent between 

DCPS and charters, and they represent the entry point 

into the public education system. 

DATA SETS 

The Master Facilities Plan is based on data collected from 

all over the District. The plan considers the priorities 

set forth by the guiding principles and working group 

in assessing need to improve DCPS and charter school 

facilities across the District at the neighborhood cluster 

level. 

CAPACITY 

School capacity numbers were obtained from DCPS and 

charter schools. When unavailable, a proxy for charter 

school capacity numbers was created by combining the 

charter enrollment numbers plus the additional open 

seats available for each school (as reported by each 

individual charter school). 

ENROLLMENT 

Enrollment data for both DCPS and charters was gathered 

from the Office of the State Superintendent of Education 

(OSSE) October 2011 Audited Enrollment. 

UTILIZATION 

Cluster utilization was determined by averaging each 

school’s utilization rate within the cluster. Each school’s 

utilization rate was determined by dividing its enrollment 

by its capacity.

KEY MAP 

DCPS & CHARTER SCHOOL 

DCPS & CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITY LOCATIONS 

FACILITY LOCATIONS 

Cluster 

Number 

Cluster Name 

Kalorama Heights, Adams Morgan, Lanier 

1 

Heights 

Columbia Heights, Mt. Pleasant, Pleasant 

2 


Howard University, Le Droit Park, Cardozo/ 

3 

Shaw 

4 Georgetown, Burleith/Hillandale 

5 West End, Foggy Bottom, GWU 

Dupont Circle, Connecticut Avenue/K 

6 

Street 


Downtown, Chinatown, Penn Quarters, 

8 

Mount Vernon Square, North Capitol Street 

Southwest Employment Area, Southwest/ 

9 

Waterfront, Fort McNair, Buzzard Point 

10 Hawthorne, Barnaby Woods, Chevy Chase 

Friendship Heights, American University 

11 

Park, Tenleytown 

North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills, Van 

12 

Ness 

Spring Valley, Palisades, Wesley Heights, 

13 Foxhall Crescent, Foxhall Village, 

Georgetown Reservoir 

Cathedral Heights, McLean Gardens, 

14 

Glover Park 

Cleveland Park, Woodley Park, 

15 Massachusetts Avenue Heights, Woodland- 

Normanstone Terrace 

Colonial Village, Shepherd Park, North 

16 

Portal Estates 

17 Takoma, Brightwood, Manor Park 

18 Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth 

Lamont Riggs, Queens Chapel, Fort Totten, 

19 

Pleasant Hill 

North Michigan Park, Michigan Park, 

20 

University Heights 

Edgewood, Bloomingdale, Truxton Circle, 

21 

Eckington 

Figure 2.2 

13 

11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

2 

18 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

22 Brookland, Brentwood, Langdon 

23 

Ivy City, Arboretum, Trinidad, Carver 

Langston 

24 Woodridge, Fort Lincoln, Gateway 

25 Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park 

26 Capitol Hill, Lincoln Park 

27 Near Southeast, Navy Yard 

28 Historic Anacostia 

29 Eastland Gardens, Kenilworth 

30 Mayfair, Hillbrook, Mahaning Heights 

31 

Deanwood, Burrville, Grant Park, Lincoln 

Heights, Fairmont Heights 

32 

River Terrace, Benning, Greenway, Dupont 

Park 

33 

Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning 

Heights 

34 

Twining, Fairlawn, Randle Highlands, Penn 

Branch, Fort Davis Park, Fort Dupont 

35 

Fairfax Village, Naylor Gardens, Hillcrest, 

Summit Park 

36 

Woodland/Fort Stanton, Garfield Heights, 

Knox Hill 

37 Sheridan, Barry Farm, Buena Vista 

38 Douglas, Shipley Terrace 

39 

Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington 

Highlands 

40 Walter Reed 

41 Rock Creek Park 

42 Observatory Circle 

43 Saint Elizabeths 

44 Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling 

45 National Mall, Potomac River 

46 National Arboretum, Anacostia River 

LEGEND 



Schools Present in Cluster 






2012/2013 and 2013/2014 

School Years 


21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

27

28 

POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT 

FORECAST 

The District of Columbia Office of Planning (OP) provided 

multiple sources of demographic data described below: 

Historical 2000 and 2010 US Census data was provided, 

including information on population, race and ethnicity, 

gender, age cohorts, households, families, income, 

educational attainment, birth and fertility rates, death 

and survival rates. OP updated the population and age 

cohort estimates to 2012 to reflect post-US Census 

interim survey projections. 

Population forecasts for the 46 neighborhood clusters 

in the District of Columbia from 2012 to 2022 were 

prepared by the DC Office of Planning’s State Planning 

Center with assistance from its citywide planning 

division. The population forecasts were based on 

the combination of extrapolating population cohort 

changes and adding projected changes in residential 

development activity (housing units) planned through 

2022. 

The cohort component method forecasts population 

change as a function of the present (baseline) population 

and factors for three components of demographic 

change over time, focusing on fertility, mortality and 

migration. 

Tracking future development activity (housing) by 

cluster as an added stimulant to population change was 

categorized in four stages of development: 2010 to 2015 

data records completed or under construction projects; 

2015 to 2020 are projects in the planning pipeline 

expected to deliver by 2020; 2020 to 2025 include 

conceptual projects; and 2020 to 2030 project conditions 

comprising larger neighborhood conceptual projects (i.e. 

St. Elizabeths, Hill East, McMillan Reservoir, etc.). Each 

project was coded based on specific characteristics, 

primarily being single family houses versus, multifamily 

housing and rental versus ownership, and assigned an 

estimated number of children and adults. 

DEFINITION OF SCHOOL-AGED 

CHILDREN 

To get a sense of the number of children who may attend 

public schools in the future, this report utilizes population 

forecasts for “school-aged children.” School-aged 

children are defined as children from ages 3-18 years old. 

Within this group, cohorts for each school type have been 

defined as follows: 

» Elementary school: ages 3-11 

» Middle school: ages 12-14 

» High school: ages 15-18 

The population forecasts predict only the number 

of children ages 3-18 that will reside in the District of 

Columbia based on a number of indicators, including 

but not limited to: fertility rates, birth rates, mortality 

rates, infant deaths, life expectancy, migration patterns, 

life-style characteristics, etc. It should be noted that 

historical data for school-aged children from 2000 and 

2010 is based on past available cohort age groups, which 

have been defined as 5-9, 10-14 and 15-17. 

Notwithstanding that the vast majority of potential 

school enrollment is derived from traditionally defined 

neighborhood-based age cohorts, actual total enrollment 

often differs to a degree from population forecasts. 

Total enrollment includes groups unaccounted for in the 

population forecast as follows: 

» Students in adult education programs. 

» Children who may not be permanent DC 

residents or, in some cases, do not reside in the 

District, but are enrolled in DCPS or charters.

FACILITY CONDITION 

The information regarding the physical state of schools 

reflects the average state of repair of DCPS facilities on a 

neighborhood cluster basis. It is derived from the facility 

assessments in the 2008 Master Plan, which was the last 

reliable data point for all DCPS facilities at the time of 

printing. 

FACILITY QUALITY 

The information about the average suitability 

and architectural quality of school facilities on a 

neighborhood cluster basis comes from a detailed 

survey of facility quality for charters and the 

modernization phase of the DCPS schools. Given that 

the focus of Phase 1 modernizations was improvement 

of the learning environment, this study assumed that 

modernization improved facility quality. For a more 

detailed discussion of the data and methodology of the 

facility condition and quality studies, see Chapter 5. 

FACILITY EFFICACY 

Part of the plan studies the adequacy of select DCPS 

and charter school facilities in supporting educational 

programming. This sample of schools offers a way 

to identify patterns of need that could guide future 

investments in modernization. For a more detailed 

discussion of the data and methodology of the facility 

efficacy study, see Chapter 5. 

Facility efficacy was analyzed together with the facility 

condition and quality studies to provide an overall view of 

the characteristics of current public education facilities in 

the District, based on the data available. 

In addition to questions about the relative state of repair 

and quality of facilities, the average distance student 

travel to school and the distribution of modernization 

funding were analyzed across the District on a 

neighborhood cluster basis. This study was undertaken 

to determine the relationship of facility quality and 

condition to enrollment patterns and to understand 

funding patterns to date. 

29

30 

CLUSTER ENROLLMENT PARTICIPATION 

Facility condition and quality affect the safety and 

comfort of students and educators, and can limit 

programming. They may also influence parent and 

student perceptions about school quality. In this 

context, an analysis of the number of students who 

enroll in schools in the neighborhood cluster where 

they live was undertaken by comparing the number 

of students enrolled in the cluster to the number of 

students who live in the cluster and are enrolled in public 

education. 

EQUITY 

The working group stressed the importance of 

understanding how modernization has been funded 

to date and ensuring that funding is equitable moving 

forward. To that end, both the dollars spent on DCPS 

facility improvements (modernization, stabilization, 

new construction) from the start of the modernization 

program in 1998 to 2012 was mapped by neighborhood 

cluster. 

Unfortunately, no data was available on charter facility 

improvement expenditures. The facility allowance 

provided by the District to charters was an unreliable 

data point over the time period 1998 to 2012, since 

the allowance is tied to enrollment and enrollment 

fluctuates over time. In addition, facility allowances may 

be used in many different ways by charters. 

FACILITY GRADE 

BANDING 

For the purposes of this Facilities Master Plan both DCPS 

and charters will be described with the following types: 

» Elementary School (ES) - Grades Pre-School (PS), 

Pre-K (PK) to Fifth Grade 

» Middle School (MS) - Sixth to Eighth Grade 

» High School (HS) - Ninth to Twelfth Grade 

» Education Campus 1 (EC1) - PS to Eighth Grade 

» Education Campus 2 (EC2) - PS to Twelfth Grade

CHAPTER 3 

Enrollment, Capacity 

and Utilization

32 

ADEQUATE SPACE TO SUPPORT 

QUALITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS 

PREMISE 

The Master Facilities Plan is meant to guide strategic 

facilities improvements so the District can provide 

families with a choice of high quality schools close to 

their homes. Currently, District families have many 

school choices outside of their neighborhoods, including 

charter schools and a variety of DC Public Schools 

(DCPS). This aim of the Master Facilities Plan is aligned 

with many existing District policies, including the 

following: 

» The Mayor’s initiative of “One City, One Future,” 

ensuring every child in every neighborhood has 

access to high quality facilities. 

» The policy of high quality school facilities 

contributing to the quality of the neighborhood. 

» The concept of high quality school facilities, 

both DCPS and charter schools, supporting high 

quality education programs and offering parents 

more choices regardless of their income or 

access to transportation. 

PURPOSE 

This chapter on Capacity and Utilization concentrates 

on how much space is available, how many students are 

in the public education system and how much space 

is utilized by students. Specifically, the Capacity and 

Utilization chapter answers the following questions: 

» Where and how many students attend DCPS and 

charter schools? 

» What is the current capacity of charter and DCPS 

school facilities? 

» Is there alignment between facility capacity and 

student enrollment? 

» How much space is being utilized to support 

current enrollment? 

» How many students could be served in the 

current space? 

» Is space located appropriately to meet current 

demand?

CAPACITY BY CLUSTER 

CAPACITY BY CLUSTER 

COMBINED Combined DCPS AND and CHARTER Charter SCHOOLS: Elementary, ES, MS Middle AND HSand 

High Schools and Educational Campus 

DCPS school capacity numbers were obtained from DCPS. 

Charter School capacity numbers were obtained from PCSB. 

When not available, a proxy for Charter School capacity 

numbers was created by combining the Charter 

School enrollment numbers plus the addi onal 

open seats available for each school (as 

reported by each individual charter school). 

Figure 3.1 

13 

11 

14 

4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 


PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILITIES PLAN 

21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

LEGEND 



1-1000 Students 





>5001 Students 

33

34 

SPACE PER STUDENT 

To understand the fit between student enrollment and 

the space available in facilities, the gross square feet per 

student based on current enrollment and capacity was 

analyzed (Figure 3.2). Gross square feet (GSF) was used 

as opposed to net square feet (NSF) or assignable square 

feet (ASF) so that a comparison could be made between 

the total space available in facilities, regardless of the 

efficiency of design or use of space. 

The significance of GSF per student is both programmatic 

and financial. If GSF per student is too low, facilities may 

not have the space to support education programming, 

particularly specialties like art, music, science and 

athletics. If GSF per student is too high, the District 

of Columbia is paying to maintain and operate more 

building area than is needed. 

Given the specialized space needs of DCPS special 

education and adult education facilities, this analysis 

focuses on DCPS elementary schools, middle schools, 

high schools and the few education campuses. For 

charter schools, the analysis focuses on elementary 

schools, middle schools, high schools, PK/K-8 education 

campuses and PK/K-12 education campuses, and it 

excludes special education and adult education facilities 

given their specialized space needs. 

When looking at GSF per student, it is important to note 

that the GSF per student tends to increase for middle 

school and high schools, as spaces like large gymnasiums 

and associated support spaces become more prevalent. 

Gymnasiums require more GSF although they do not 

tend to increase a school’s capacity because of their 

occasional use. Charter schools typically do not have 

access to such large spaces, so the GSF per student tends 

to be based on more efficient spaces like classrooms. 

Additionally, given the wide range of education 

programming in the District in both DCPS and charter 

schools, there is not a single GSF per student that is 

ideal or appropriate for every school. However, GSF per 

student puts all schools on equal footing regardless of 

academic program, how they were designed or are being 

used currently. Furthermore, benchmark data is available 

for GSF per student from the DCPS Design Guidelines and 

other school districts, allowing for comparisons. 

DCPS 

The average GSF per enrolled student breaks down by 

school type as follows (Figure 3.3): 

» Elementary School: 243 SF/student: 

› DCPS Standard for New Construction and 

Modernization 1 150 SF/ student 

› National Average 2 : 77-147 SF/ student 

» Middle School: 436 SF / student: 


Modernization : 170 SF/ student 

› National Average 114-212 SF/ student 

› ES-MS Education Campus: 256 SF/student 

› ES-HS Education Campus: 270 SF/ student 

» High School: 408 SF / student 


Modernization : 192 SF/ student 

› National Average 123-211 SF/ student 

1 Design Guidelines | District of Columbia Public Schools, 2009, pg 

2000-1 

2 

Wohlers, Art. “Gross Square Feet per Student”, Council of Education 

Facilities Planners, Issuetrak, November 2005.

GSF GSF per per Enrolled Student v. GSF per Student Capacity 

650 

600 

550 

500 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Figure 3.2 

DCPS Analysis 

DCPS 

SF per Enrolled Student SF per Student Capacity 

All school types on average are well above the GSF per 

student identified in DCPS design guidelines. This finding 

suggests that either the inventory is unaligned with 

current enrollment or there are significant issues with 

the efficiency of building designs. This issue is particularly 

acute for middle schools. Although DCPS has only 13 

middle schools and only 4,759 DCPS students enrolled 

in these stand alone middle schools (grades 6-8), it 

dedicates 1.8 million GSF to middle school education. 

There is more space per student in middle schools than 

any other type of school. 

PCS 

CHARTER SCHOOLS 

Given the range of space needed to support the wide 

variety of charter education programs, it is difficult to 

develop a meaningful average GSF per student nationally. 

However, it is useful to examine the amount of space 

available per student for reference. The statistical 

average (mean) SF per enrolled student by grade 

configuration is as follows (Figure 3.3): 

» Elementary School: 114 SF/student 

» Middle School: 121 SF / student 

» ES-MS Education Campus: 143 SF/student 

» ES-HS Education Campus: 202 SF/ student 

» High School 155 SF / student 

35

36 

GSF per Enrolled Student 

DCPS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS 

COMBINED AND COMPARED 

Charter facilities range from purpose-built new schools 

to leased commercial space and former DCPS schools 

to meet a wide range of educational programming with 

differential spatial needs. However, charter schools on a 

GSF per student basis are operating between 25 percent 

to 50 percent less space per student than is the case 

with DCPS schools. 

1000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

Figure 3.3 

0 

DCPS Elementary 

DCPS Middle 

ENROLLMENT 

Between 2001 and 2008, total enrollment decreased 

by more than 2,000 students but increased by more 

than 5,000 students from 2009 to 2011. From 2001 to 

2011, the charter schools’ share of total enrollment has 

increased from 14 percent to more than 38 percent in 

2011 (Figure 3.4). 

DCPS has the greatest share of elementary and high 

school students, while charter schools have the greatest 

share of ES-MS education campuses (Figure 3.5). 

School Types by Space per Enrolled Student 

Average GSF per Enrolled Student 

DCPS High 

DCPS Education Campus 1 


PCS Elementary 

PCS Middle 

PCS High 

PCS Education Campus 1 

High Low Range 

Average 

PCS Education Campus 2

Comparison of Enrollment between DCPS and Charter Schools 

Figure 3.4 

Figure 3.5 

Comparison of Enrollment by Grade between DCPS 

and Charter Schools 

37

38 

From Grade 5 to Grade 6, DCPS enrollment significantly 

dips according to the October 2011 Enrollment Audit 

in contrast to an increase in charter school enrollment 

for the same grades (Figure 3.5). There are 668 fewer 

students enrolled in DCPS Grade 6 than in Grade 5 and 

469 more students enrolled in charters Grade 6 than in 

charters Grade 5. 

This data suggests that there is a noticeable shift 

from DCPS to charter schools at the transition from 

elementary to middle school. This shift may account 

for part of the under-utilization of DCPS middle school 

inventory and the over-utilization of charter schools’ 

middle school inventory. Together, DCPS and charters 

lost nearly 200 students between Grades 5 and 6 in 

2011. 

Enrollment significantly jumps from Grade 8 to Grade 

9 in both DCPS and charter schools. The increase is 

considerable in DCPS schools, where there were 1,349 

more students in Grade 9 than in Grade 8. For charter 

schools, there were 146 more students in Grade 9 than 

in Grade 8. 

UTILIZATION 

Although average utilization for both DCPS and charters 

shows a reasonable match between capacity and 

enrollment District-wide, at 75 percent and 85 percent 

respectively, there is wide variation among school types 

and neighborhood clusters. Figure 3.8 demonstrates 

the wide variation in utilization between neighborhood 

clusters in the District’s schools to suggest there are 

enough seats in total, but the seats are not located in the 

right places to meet current demand. 

Given the excess capacity in the DCPS middle school 

inventory, utilization drops dramatically in DCPS middle 

schools. Interestingly, DCPS utilization for middle schools 

drops to 53 percent and charter school utilization jumps 

to 82 percent. Correlating this misalignment between 

facility capacity at the middle school level and enrollment 

with a grade cohort analysis, the data suggests that there 

is a shift from DCPS to charters during the middle school 

years. 

Elementary and middle schools are well utilized for both 

DCPS and charter schools, at 78 percent utilization and 

91 percent utilization respectively. The combination of 

elementary and middle schools in (combined) ES-MS 

campuses is also more efficient on SF/student basis.

ENROLLMENT BY CLUSTER 

ENROLLMENT BY CLUSTER 

COMBINED Combined DCPS AND and CHARTER Charter SCHOOLS: School ES, MS AND HS 

Total Enrollments 

Enrollment data for both DCPS and Charter Schools was 

gathered from the Offi ce of the State Superintendant of 

Educa on (OSSE) October 2011 Audited Enrollment. 

Figure 3.6 

13 

11 

14 

4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 








>3751 Students 



21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

39

UTILIZATION BY CLUSTER 

UTILIZATION BY CLUSTER 

COMBINED Combined DCPS AND and CHARTER Charter SCHOOLS: Elementary, ES, MS Middle AND HSand 

High Schools and Educational Campuses 

Cluster u liza on was determined by taking each school’s 

enrollment and dividing by the facility’s capacity. 

DCPS enrollment numbers are from the Offi ce of the 

State Superintendant of Educa on (OSSE) and 

Charter School Enrollment numbers obtained 

from Public Charter School Board (PCSB). 

DCPS school capacity numbers obtained 

from DCPS. Charter School capacity 

10 

numbers obtained from PCSB. 

When not available, a proxy 

for Charter School capacity 

numbers was created by 

combining the Charter 

School enrollment 

12 

13 

numbers plus 

the addi onal 

open seats 

available for each 

school (as reported by 

each individual charter 

school). 

Figure 3.7 

11 

14 

4 

42 

15 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

LEGEND 



1-25% U liza on 



76-100% U liza on 

>100% U liza on 


40 40 


9 

21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33

GSF Utilization 

FINDINGS 

ENROLLMENT 

Enrollment is fluid and dynamic. Although enrollment 

has decreased in recent years, enrollment trends 

projected for the next three to eight years may put new 

pressures on both DCPS and charter schools. 

DCPS and charter enrollment dips considerably between 

Grades 5 and 6, suggesting that students and families are 

leaving the public education system at the middle school 

level. 

Charter capacity and enrollment are condensed within 

the central and northern parts of the city (clusters 21, 18, 

170 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

DCPS Elementary 

Figure 3.8 

DCPS Middle 

2, and east of the Anacostia River), even as school-aged 

population is expected to grow citywide. 

CAPACITY 

Utilization School Types by School by Utilization Types 

DCPS High 



There is an excess of approximately 17,600 seats in the 

active DCPS inventory. This number includes buildings 

that have recently been proposed for consolidation, but 

does not include buildings that are currently used for 

non-instructional purposes. Adding the capacity from 

buildings that are vacant or used for some other purpose, 

there is a total of 23,500 seats in the total DCPS inventory 

(based on 2011 audited enrollment data). 

PCS Elementary 

PCS Middle 

PCS High 


High Low Range 

Average 


41

42 

Figure 3.9 

There is capacity for approximately 7,300 students 

in charter schools (based on charter self-reported 

capacities and available slots). 

A challenge is to find more strategic ways to distribute 

capacity geographically and between DCPS and charters 

so that capacity aligns with demand, while also preparing 

for future increases in enrollment. 

UTILIZATION 

Enrollment v. Capacity with Utilization Average 

Although average utilization for both DCPS and charters 

shows a reasonable match between capacity and 

enrollment District-wide, at 75 percent and 85 percent 

respectively, utilization on a school-by-school basis 

varies widely. This data suggests that there are more 

than enough seats in total, but they are not in the right 

places or do not align with current demand. For example, 

some neighborhood clusters are well over capacity – as 

much 137 percent utilized, while others are as low as 35 

percent utilized. 

Among the most common school types (elementary 

schools, middle schools, K-8 education campuses, and 

high schools), middle school utilization is the lowest at 52 

percent for DCPS and 86 percent for charter schools. 

The highest DCPS utilization among the most common 

school types is elementary schools at 81 percent and the 

highest charter school utilization is high schools at 94 

percent.

OPPORTUNITIES 

Meetings with the working group examined the 

possibility of a framework developed for the strategic 

matching of charter schools with available DCPS space 

around the city, where charter school education 

programming and grade configuration complement a 

DCPS need. 

Discussions with community members and the working 

group also focused on encouraging more mixed-use 

facility planning, development, and operation to take 

advantage of community and education-related building 

uses outside of DCPS and charter schools. Creative 

short-term leases for partner agencies, community 

organizations, or even small businesses would absorb 

excess building area while activating the facility outside 

of traditional school hours. This approach to facilities 

could enrich DCPS or charter school programming, 

offset facility costs and help absorb excess capacity now, 

without relinquishing capacity permanently, so that 

capacity is available when enrollment increases. 

Some community members and even students 

requested a focus on job training and skill development. 

Organizations that lease space could be required to 

consider internships and mentoring opportunities for 

public education students. These types of partnerships 

could create jobs and economic opportunity in local 

communities. When enrollment increases, the lease can 

be terminated and capacity recaptured. 

43

44 

Summary Table of Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization by School Type 

Figure 3.10

CHAPTER 4 

Population and 

Enrollment Forecast

48 

UNDERSTANDING THE FUTURE OF 

STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN THE DISTRICT 

PREMISES 

The following premises and assumptions frame the data 

that was collected, methods of analyses and questions 

explored in this chapter: 

» Both charter schools and DCPS are best 

located in the areas where there is an existing 

or forecasted high concentration of children. 

Based on this premise, this report analyzes 

school-age demographics geographically to 

understand their potential impact on school 

facilities. 

» The forecasted enrollment is assumed at today’s 

share of the total school-aged population. 

» The Master Facilities Plan analyzes whether 

sufficient capacity in high quality facilities exists 

for all children, whether in DCPS or charter 

schools. Therefore, the total capacity of DCPS 

and charter schools combined is compared 

to the total number of school-aged children 

expected in future years. This analysis does not 

forecast the future enrollment share between 

DCPS and charters. 

» The Master Plan’s first priority is to address 

current school capacity. The second and parallel 

priority is to consider near-term anticipated 

changes in demand. In this analysis, these 

shifts respond to demographic patterns that 

are forecast through the next five years (to 

2017). The third priority is to study potential 

longer term demographic patterns, which, by 

definition, become more speculative as they 

shift from historically anchored characteristics. 

» Finally, while the demand for school facilities 

relates to parental decisions about educational 

experiences and services, this Master Facilities 

Plan does not address such school choices. 

PURPOSE 

This part of the Master Facilities Plan further establishes a 

baseline of neighborhood cluster data points and outlines 

future demand scenarios for school facilities. This 

chapter on Population and Enrollment Forecasts answers 

the following questions: 

» What are the key demographic changes that 

could influence school-aged population in the 

future? 

» How many school-aged children are forecasted 

to live in the District in the next five years? The 

next 10 years? 

» In what neighborhood clusters is the population 

of school-aged children expected to change in 

five and 10 years? 

» How does the existing capacity at DCPS and 

charter schools relate to the forecasted schoolaged 

population?

POPULATION CHANGE BY CLUSTER 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

2000-2012 CHANGE IN SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN 

2000-2012 School Aged Children 

Population Changes 

Popula on data was gathered from the Offi ce of Planning (OP). 

School Age Popula on for this map includes children 

a ending DCPS, Charter Schools, and private schools 

aged 3 to 18 years. 

Figure 4.1 

13 

11 

14 

4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 


No Popula on Present in Cluster 

1-500 Increase 

1-200 Decrease 

> 200 Decrease 



21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

49

50 

Figure 4.2 

POPULATION 

FORECAST 

The District of Columbia’s Office of Planning October 

2012 Phase 2 population forecasts suggest that between 

2012 and 2017, the overall population for the District 

will increase by 8.2 percent, coupled with a 20.5 percent 

increase in the school-aged population associated 

children (5-17 year old consolidated cohorts). This 

growth translates into an average annual increase of 

approximately 2,850 additional school-aged children per 

year (Figure 4.2). 

Forecast data from the DC Office of Planning suggests 

that between 2017 and 2022, the overall population for 

the District will increase by 7.3 percent, coupled with 

a 28.7 percent increase in the school-aged population 

associated children (Figure 4.3). 

Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show how the forecasted population 

growth is applied across the neighborhood clusters in 

2017 and 2022. Figures 4.10 and 4.11 show the studentaged 

population density per neighborhood cluster in 

2012 and in 2017. 

For the period of 2017 to 2022, an average of 4,810 

additional school-aged children will be added per year. 

By 2022, the OP forecast suggests that the percentage of 

school-aged children as a component of total population 

will be 14.7 percent or approximately back to the level 

that prevailed in 2000.

FORECAST RANGES 

Figures 4.6 - 4.7 shows two population forecasts. 

Figure 4.6 is an extrapolated forcast based on data 

obtained from the Metropolitan Washington Council 

of Governments (COG). The second table is from the 

DC Office of Planning (OP). OP's forecast data set is 

based on the 2012 Census estimates (recently released) 

as the starting point where as the COG extrapolated 

forecast is based on the 2011 Census data set and 2015 

and 2020 COG estimates. Both are suitable forecasts 

to predict the District population in the years to come. 

They are different because of different assumptions and 

methodologies, and, therefore, are two forecasts for two 

possible futures. 

The OP population forecast is being used for the 

purposes of this Master Facilities Plan. Understanding 

90,000 

85,000 

80,000 

75,000 

70,000 

65,000 

60,000 

55,000 

50,000 

45,000 

40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

Age Cohort Forecast Trends 

3‐11 yrs 12‐14 yrs 15‐18 yrs 

2012 2017 2022 

Source: Office of Planning Forecast Phase 1, 2000 and 2010 Census, 1/13 

Figure 4.3 

that in applying OP’s population forecasts to school 

facility planning, there are a number of caveats to 

consider, ranging from the prospects for and capacity to 

absorb in-migration, to probabilities of family households 

starting out and staying in a given location, and to the 

influence of school proximity and quality regarding 

household location choice. 

Against a backdrop of uncertain national and regional 

economic conditions, combined with an array of 

location options for families in other jurisdictions close 

to the District of Columbia, the facility planning process 

must balance school investment commitments in such 

a manner that resources are channeled to support 

known needs as well as possible new demands. A key 

test regarding possible school facility investment, be it 

51

52 

POPULATION FORECAST 


2012-2017 SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN POPULATION CHANGES 



Popula on forecasts were prepared by the DC Offi ce of 

Planning’s State Planning Center with assistance from its 

citywide planning division. 


a ending DCPS, Charter Schools, and private 

schools aged 3 to 18 years. 

Figure 4.4 

13 

11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 


Water 


>2000 Increase 







21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

31 

33







Planning’s State Planning Center with assistance from its 

citywide planning division. 


a ending DCPS, Charter Schools, and private 

schools aged 3 to 18 years. 

Figure 4.5 

13 

11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 


Water 


>2000 Increase 






> 200 Decrease 


21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

31 

33 

53

54 

2,012 2,017 2,022 

3-11 12-14 15-18 3-11 12-14 15-18 3-11 12-14 15-18 

1 572 104 204 687 53 90 697 66 50 1 

2 3,522 798 1,451 4,288 714 897 4,988 786 844 2 

3 350 151 267 476 115 432 499 162 301 3 

4 614 166 424 867 222 655 799 276 706 4 

5 173 17 122 440 161 155 422 942 1,715 5 

6 248 27 199 272 16 32 296 20 23 6 

7 1,042 207 348 1,410 157 189 1,822 225 142 7 

8 794 148 385 1,275 121 145 1,817 212 151 8 

9 715 192 372 875 133 181 963 185 152 9 

10 1,844 457 581 1,675 599 529 1,520 498 633 10 

11 1,403 320 455 1,314 411 503 1,245 399 603 11 

12 514 115 255 563 89 119 537 121 92 12 

13 1,375 648 845 1,225 807 1,979 1,050 302 1,553 13 

14 743 148 364 778 144 271 754 174 255 14 

15 779 139 386 871 113 121 825 153 99 15 

16 497 106 128 501 164 134 522 134 201 16 

17 2,020 543 820 2,386 596 710 2,578 711 777 17 

18 3,815 1,091 1,728 4,558 992 1,352 5,168 1,298 1,268 18 

19 1,158 322 541 1,448 342 387 1,678 455 397 19 

20 679 282 534 679 237 556 688 229 430 20 

21 1,593 492 863 1,894 393 654 2,248 535 495 21 

22 1,201 370 670 1,365 383 487 1,460 440 505 22 

23 1,518 511 943 1,572 493 696 1,768 420 653 23 

24 566 171 279 670 171 300 754 245 287 24 

25 1,893 281 753 2,461 341 362 2,769 511 371 25 

26 1,853 372 684 2,451 395 470 3,028 476 468 26 

27 36 5 15 104 4 4 227 5 2 27 

28 852 272 292 912 194 279 868 246 242 28 

29 389 163 239 460 136 139 569 172 145 29 

30 938 280 410 1,099 315 344 1,099 315 318 30 

31 1,868 610 939 2,010 535 779 2,110 714 746 31 

32 1,502 506 874 1,622 502 581 1,719 521 664 32 

33 2,292 741 1,191 2,583 692 888 2,775 842 842 33 

34 1,559 540 797 1,619 474 717 1,669 546 566 34 

35 534 191 254 534 164 189 534 164 166 35 

36 1,212 353 522 1,321 347 446 1,494 384 414 36 

37 1,356 379 627 1,277 405 429 1,301 357 394 37 

38 2,119 596 950 2,207 517 620 2,154 645 586 38 

39 3,956 1,129 1,863 4,330 1,065 1,268 4,289 1,269 1,267 39 

40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 

41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 

42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 

43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 

44 615 128 199 647 94 167 623 90 114 44 

45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 

46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 

Figure 4.6 

Extrapolated COG Population Forecast 

50,709 14,074 23,776 57,725 13,804 19,256 62,330 16,244 19,637 

*The Po 

Plan

Population Forecast by DC Office of Planning* 

2,012 2,017 2,022 

15-18 3-11 12-14 15-18 3-11 12-14 15-18 3-11 12-14 15-18 

50 1 734 141 182 1,625 190 204 2,465 426 326 

844 2 3,760 933 1,275 6,014 1,122 1,333 7,868 1,593 1,718 

301 3 472 125 175 976 124 168 1,526 300 207 

706 4 959 195 241 1,382 272 291 1,931 494 425 

1,715 5 177 15 43 517 46 30 1,226 120 66 

23 6 373 62 102 976 88 88 1,727 271 157 

142 7 955 237 320 1,684 284 329 2,334 493 407 

151 8 1,067 262 402 1,682 331 404 2,264 541 524 

152 9 753 234 366 964 216 323 1,035 357 356 

633 10 1,808 507 588 1,474 642 716 1,120 538 849 

603 11 1,230 319 331 1,421 405 456 1,645 415 606 

92 12 655 171 215 825 222 246 1,189 250 305 

1,553 13 1,402 422 472 1,285 524 605 1,384 413 660 

255 14 803 170 264 1,474 252 272 2,399 350 350 

99 15 789 205 233 1,162 249 280 1,723 341 374 

201 16 410 101 143 318 142 157 228 102 205 

777 17 2,094 573 832 2,907 649 795 3,469 804 940 

1,268 18 3,727 1,084 1,593 5,512 1,084 1,505 6,837 1,483 1,605 

397 19 941 290 414 1,455 319 395 2,184 388 436 

430 20 928 275 447 1,084 272 366 1,145 388 404 

495 21 1,672 507 741 2,455 538 755 3,246 803 864 

505 22 1,209 411 671 1,624 373 529 2,051 464 541 

653 23 1,525 498 806 1,884 498 663 2,305 495 702 

287 24 536 166 260 708 186 260 879 244 302 

371 25 2,139 521 764 3,689 678 752 5,303 1,099 1,048 

468 26 2,013 410 507 3,011 573 589 3,578 1,032 883 

2 27 118 33 48 303 69 71 427 123 175 

242 28 838 280 302 979 252 379 1,113 296 361 

145 29 334 133 214 418 106 171 582 107 138 

318 30 958 281 400 1,089 295 405 1,235 381 450 

746 31 1,561 582 947 1,851 469 731 2,236 565 676 

664 32 1,398 497 784 1,519 478 613 1,715 443 661 

842 33 2,401 815 1,224 2,641 743 1,092 2,896 837 1,052 

566 34 1,504 560 790 1,815 485 730 2,087 557 646 

166 35 496 187 223 595 156 225 649 196 228 

414 36 1,154 372 519 1,232 381 515 1,354 406 489 

394 37 1,492 464 709 1,857 562 662 2,427 560 746 

586 38 2,042 613 913 2,331 623 821 2,501 746 893 

1,267 39 4,199 1,303 1,911 5,106 1,323 1,702 5,721 1,573 1,942 

0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 

0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 43 4 1 2 12 5 10 0 22 23 

114 44 708 118 120 877 181 189 607 386 325 

0 45 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 

0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

,637 52,340 15,078 21,494 70,734 16,407 20,829 88,662 21,402 24,067 

*The Population Forecast by DC Office of Planning is being used for the Facilities Master 

Plan 

Figure 4.7 

55

56 

to expand actual capacity or to maintain or upgrade 

existing capacity, is to seek data measures underscoring 

needs regardless of the actual level of realized growth. 

Such a hypothetical adjustment to the suggested 

population forecasts (at 50 percent of forecast 

population change estimates) is included in the Unmet 

Need section of this report. 

These projections do not account for several significant 

redevelopment projects in DC such as the St. Elizabeths 

East Campus and Walter Reed Army Medical Center. 

These projects are still in the planning stages and it is too 

early to predict the impact they may have on population 

changes. 

ENROLLMENT 

FORECAST 

There is usually some difference between actual school 

enrollment and the estimate of school-aged children in 

a given neighborhood cluster. This difference varies in 

degree due to numerous variables. The following maps 

illustrate projected enrollments by using school-aged 

population ratios in the population forecasts which 

incorporate the expected continuation of enrollment 

anomalies (Figures 4.8 - 4.9). 

PROJECTED UNMET 

NEED 

Figures 4.10 - 4.11 provide a visual reference for the 

potential interplay between forecasted school-aged 

enrollment changes and the impact on existing school 

capacity. 

FINDINGS 

2000-2012 POPULATION CHANGES 

» The overall population of the District of 

Columbia grew from approximately 572,500 

residents in 2000 to 631,700 in 2012, 

representing an increase of 10.3 percent or 

an estimated 59,200 residents. Calculated on 

an annual basis, this increase equates to 4,930 

new residents each year or 0.6 percent rise 

per annum (Figure 4.2). 

» Despite overall population gains, the schoolaged 

children population (ages 5-17 years 

consolidated cohorts) decreased from 

approximately 82,500 in 2000 to 69,580 in 

2012, representing a decrease of 15.7 percent 

or an estimated 12,920 school-aged children. 

This decrease equates to an average loss of 

just under 1,080 school-aged children each 

year or an average annual 1.3 percent loss 

(Figure 4.2). 

» The overall decline in school-aged children 

occurred primarily prior to 2010. A gain of 2.0 

percent (1,375) school-aged children (ages 

5-17 years) occurred between 2010 and 2012. 

» The percentage of school-aged children as 

a component of total population decreased 

from 14.4 percent in 2000 to 11.0 percent in 

2012. 

» Of the 44 neighborhood clusters that 

contain school-aged children, 33 clusters 

(75.0 percent) posted school-aged children 

decreases in which Clusters 2, 18 and 21 all 

posted the biggest losses, amounting to more 

than 1,000 children total per cluster. Clusters 

4, 10 and 11 had the most school-aged 

children gains with more than 300 additional 

school-aged children per cluster over the 12- 

year time frame.

58 

PREDICTED ENROLLMENT 

ENROLLMENT FORECAST 


2012-2017 Changes to Public Education Enrollment 

(All School Types) 

DCPS enrollment numbers are from the Offi ce of the State 

Superintendant of Educa on (OSSE) and Charter School 

Enrollment numbers obtained from Public Charter School 

Board (PCSB). 

Figure 4.8 

13 

11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 









21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33

UNMET NEED 

PROJECTED UNMET NEED 

2012 NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH UNMET NEED COMPARED AGAINST DCPS AND 

Number of Students with Need Unmet by Facility 

CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITY CAPACITY WITHIN HOME CLUSTER 

Capacity within Home Cluster 


Planning’s State Planning Center with assistance from 

its citywide planning division. 

School capacity numbers were obtained 

from DCPS and Charter schools. When 

unavailable, a proxy for Charter school 

capacity numbers was created by 

10 

combining the Charter enrollment 

numbers plus the addi onal 

open seats available for each 

school (as reported by 

each individual Charter 

school). 

12 

11 

School Age 

Popula on for 

this map includes 

children a ending 

DCPS, Charter Schools, 

and private schools aged 

3 to 18 years. 

Figure 4.9 

13 

14 


4 

42 

15 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



>1,995 Students 

1,597 - 1,995 Students 

1,198 - 1,596 Students 

798 - 1,197 Students 

399 - 797 Students 

0 - 398 Students 


21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

59

60 



2012 SCHOOL-AGE POPULATION STUDENTS PER ACRE 

School Aged Children per Acre in 2012 

Data was gathered from the Offi ce of the Chief Technology 

Offi cer (OCTO). 




Figure 4.10 

13 

11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



>4.47 Students per Acre 

3.64 - 4.47 Students per Acre 





21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33



2017 SCHOOL-AGE POPULATION STUDENTS PER ACRE 

Students per Acre in 2017 

Data was gathered from the Offi ce of the Chief Technology 

Offi cer (OCTO). 




Figure 4.11 

13 

11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



>6.08 Students per Acre 






21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

61

62 

SNAPSHOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD 

CLUSTER DIFFERENTIATION AND 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

» School-aged children (5-17 yrs.): In 2012, 

neighborhood clusters with the most schoolaged 

children (3,500-plus) are 2, 18, 33 and 39. 

Clusters with the fewest school-aged children 

(less than 400) are 5, 6 and 27. 

» Family households are defined by one or two 

persons related by birth, marriage or adoption: 

of the estimated 257,300-plus households in the 

District of Columbia reported in 2010, 112,715 

were family households representing 43.8 

percent of total households (see Appendix C). 

» Higher family concentrations (65.0 percentplus) 

are in neighborhood clusters 16, 29, 33, 

37, 38 and 39. Conversely, the lowest family 

concentrations (25.2 percent or less) are in 

neighborhood clusters 1, 6 and 7. District-wide, 

the average family size is about 3.0 persons per 

household (see Appendix C). 

» Owner-occupied households: Of the estimated 

257,300-plus households in the District of 

Columbia reported in 2010, 110,410 are owneroccupied, 

representing 42.9 percent of total 

households. The neighborhood clusters with 

the highest housing tenure are 10, 11, 13, 16 

and 20. Conversely, the fewest owner-occupied 

households are in neighborhood clusters 28 and 

36-39 (see Appendix C). 

» Educational attainment for population of 

18-plus years: More than 50 percent of the 

population in 18 clusters (1, 3-16 and 25-27) 

have graduated from a higher educational 

institution with an associate degree or higher. 

All other clusters generally have less than 35 

percent of the population with educational 

attainment of an associate degree or higher (see 

Appendix C) 

UNMET NEED 

Depending on the assumptions employed, it can be 

seen that approximately one-third of the neighborhood 

clusters are forecasted to have a potential 200-plus seat 

deficit when compared with existing facility capacity by 

2017. By 2022 and beyond, closer to two-thirds of the 

neighborhood clusters are facing a potential seat deficit. 

In contrast, some combinations of clusters may continue 

to have excess school capacity; not so much because of 

any forecast of significant reduced demand from schoolaged 

children, but from a lingering capacity overage 

following school population declines from years past.

CHAPTER 5: 

Facility Condition, 

Quality and Efficacy

64 

FACILITY QUALITY AND CONDITION 

SHOULD SUPPORT QUALITY EDUCATION 

PREMISE 

The following premises and assumptions frame the 

collected data, methods of analyses and questions 

explored in this chapter: 



programming. They may also influence parent and 

student perceptions about school quality. To better 

understand this impact, a mobility analysis was 

undertaken to understand facility quality within the 

context of in-boundary student attendance rates. 

To guide strategic capital expenditure on facilities, it 

is critical to understand where facility condition and 

quality needs are greatest in the city and the condition 

and quality needs that are most persistent among similar 

schools. 

Facility condition and facility quality are different, and 

should be measured separately. Facility condition is 

the state of repair of the building enclosure (roof, walls, 

windows, etc); interiors (walls, finishes, lighting, etc); 

and building systems (mechanical, plumbing, electrical). 

Facility quality is the suitability of the school building for 

learning and its architectural and aesthetic quality. A 

school building can be in great physical condition, but 

of low quality in terms of learning and architectural 

merit. A high quality building for learning can be in poor 

physical condition. 

DCPS facilities that have been fully modernized since 

2008 are assumed to be in good condition and of high 

facility quality, and, therefore, were assessed to have 

no condition or quality need over the five-year planning 

horizon of this master plan. DCPS facilities that were 

modernized before 2008 were assumed to have some 

condition need. Those that have yet to be modernized 

were assumed to have the greatest need. 

Since very limited data was available about the time 

frame and scope of charter school modernization, this 

report relies on survey data from charters to describe in 

broad terms the quality and condition of facilities. 

Highly effective teaching and learning, functional 

programming and rich student experiences are the basis 

of quality facilities and the design of school environments 

should be measured against them. This report 

summarizes lessons learned from assessing a sample of 

schools yet to be modernized through the Educational 

Facility Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI). The EFEI measures 

the effectiveness of facilities in supporting education 

goals outlined in the current DCPS Design Guidelines and 

national best practices. 

PURPOSE 

This section of the Master Facilities Plan examines the 

relative state of repair and quality of public education 

facilities across the District on a neighborhood basis. It 

identifies patterns of facility needs among charter and 

DCPS facilities that may influence the effectiveness of 

facilities to support quality programming. This portion of 

the plan answers the following questions:

» Where are the greatest facility condition needs? 

» Are there any significant geographic patterns in 

facility quality across the city? 

» How equitably has modernization funding for 

DCPS been distributed across the city? 

» Among DCPS facilities that have yet to be 

modernized and all charter schools, are there 

patterns of specific facility needs that should be 

addressed by future modernizations? 


DCPS facility condition was assessed on an “asset” or 

building systems basis (roof, window, mechanical system, 

etc.). Building assets were originally assessed on a scale 

from “unsatisfactory” to “good” based on the facility 

condition index (FCI). 

Although a detailed building assessments for all DCPS 

inventory are currently ongoing, there was not complete 

data for all DCPS facilities at the time of printing. 

Therefore, this report relies on the 2008 Master Facilities 

Plan for the base data for building assessments, with 

updates based on modernizations that have occurred 

from 2008 to 2011. 

The facility condition data on DCPS schools from 2008 

includes assessments of the following building elements 

or “assets:” 

» ADA Compliance 

» Conveying Systems 

» Electrical Systems 

» Exterior Finish 

» HVAC 

» Interior Finish 

» Plumbing 

» Roof 

» Structure 

» Technology 

There was no reliable data point for charter school facility 

condition (see Limitations of Data in Appendix G). 

Each of the building assets was assessed by dividing 

the total cost of outstanding maintenance, repair and 

replacement deficiencies of the asset against the current 

replacement value of the asset. This calculation yields 

what is commonly called a facility condition index or FCI. 

65

66 

In general, this index is a relative indicator of condition. 

The closer the cost of the outstanding maintenance and 

repair deficiencies are to the cost of replacement, the 

worse the condition of the asset is assessed to be. The 

index is expressed as a decimal. 

EDUCATIONAL 

FACILITIES 

EFFECTIVENESS 

INSTRUMENT (EFEI) 

Fielding Nair International, one of the consultants on this 

plan, developed the Educational Facilities Effectiveness 

Instrument (EFEI) to measure how well educational 

facilities support teaching and learning. Since 2005, 

the tool has been used to evaluate facilities of all grade 

levels throughout the world, culminating in close to $1 

billion worth of assets. Fielding Nair continues to develop 

the tool according to best practices and the highest 

standards in design for 21st-century learning. The EFEI 

does not measure education programming, educators 

or facility condition; rather, it focuses on the educational 

effectiveness of the school facility itself, based on criteria 

customized for each school district. 

For the District of Columbia public schools, the criteria 

were customized based on the stated goals of the DCPS 

Facility Design Guidelines and best practices in 21stcentury 

school design. 

The patterns are divided into three sections, relating to 

the areas of DCPS schools addressed in each phase of 

modernization. A sample of the full DCPS EFEI assessment 

listing all 33 patterns and supporting questions can be 

found in Appendix G.

n how many of the 

e supported by the 

or proposed school 

easier to gauge their 

ng needs. 

Breakout Area 

Soft Seating 

Active Zone 

Entry, storage, 

project work 

l continue in some 

et us look at design 

el is amended so that 

ox to a more flexible 

Studio is sometimes Flex Space 

which is, actually, Seminar, quiet individual work, 

t schools featuring collaborative, or presentation 

Learning Studios 

Figure Figure 5.1: A 1-4. flexible design allows for greater 

tka, Illinois built in 

differentiation Design Pattern within #1c: the Learning classroom 

Studio. 

ce its opening, the 

l remains relevant— Movable wall, screen, storage units 

ls being built today. 

or bookshelves 

sroom—A Pattern 

an makes a strong 

Breakout 

e classroom and its 

Area 

udio with multiple 

f a Learning Studio Studio A 

arning Studios can 

ite." This is further 

Studio B 

first illustrates one 

gure 1-6 shows the 

le—which is a new 

Outdoor Learning 

nd schools able to 

Figure 5.2: Project-Based Learning at Terrace an elementary 

regular plan creates 

school in Medford, OR 

zones that support Figure 1-5. 

modalities from the Design Pattern #1d: Learning Suite. Each studio 

individual students has its own entry, breakout area, and outdoor 

connection, and may operate as a single studio or 

. 

combined with the adjacent studio into a learning 

suite. 

Design Patterns for 21st Century Schools 

7 

EFEI PATTERNS TO 

MEASURE SCHOOL 

FACILITY EFFICACY 

PATTERNS ALIGNED WITH DCPS PHASE 

ONE MODERNIZATION 

1a: Differentiation 

How effectively do the principal learning spaces support 

differentiation? 

To help every child reach his or her potential, teachers 

often need to provide different avenues for acquiring 

content, processing concepts, constructing knowledge 

or making sense of ideas. Differentiated instruction 

requires flexible and agile learning environments 

suitable to a variety of learning activities and student 

group sizes. This adaptability is particularly critical in 

learning environments where there is great diversity in 

ability, from students with special needs to those on an 

accelerated learning track. 

1b: Project Based Learning 

How effectively do the principal learning areas support 

project-based learning? 

The DCPS Facility Design Guidelines state that “the middle 

school program is based on team teaching with a focus 

on a project-based interdisciplinary curriculum.” Projectbased 

learning (PBL) is structured, student-directed 

learning that develops multiple skill sets, including critical 

thinking, research skills and core academics. Students 

may work independently or in teams on multifaceted, 

often interdisciplinary projects, which access learning 

standards. This set of criteria evaluates the effectiveness 

of the physical environment to support this educational 

goal. 

67

68 

and democratically decide who gets to use which space 

when. That said, each teacher will have a professionally 

outfitted workspace alongside their colleagues in the 

teacher’s office, which is also part of the SLC. 

12 The Language of School Design 

Café & 

Project 

Area 

its own science room, its own teacher workroom with 

the transparency needed for the space to serve as "eyes 

on the street", its own toilets, its own science lab and its 

own central multi-purpose social space that can be used 

for project work, independent study, distance learning, 

collaborative work, technology-based work and so on. 

Figure 1-9 shows a simpler arrangement than the SLC 

described above with Learning Studios clustered around 

small group rooms and a café that doubles as a project 

area. But even at this simple level, it is possible to create an 

effective SLC. 

1c: Learning Communities 

How effectively do the principal learning areas support 

the organization of the school as a cluster of learning 

communities? 

This particular pattern could be modified to show each 

SLC having its own direct connection to the outdoors. 

Additionally, each Learning Studio itself could have 

an outdoor connection. The floor plan (Figure 1-10) 

and photograph of the Djidi Djidi Aboriginal School 

in Australia (Figure 1-11) feature another example of 

how Learning Studios can be combined with other 

common spaces to create self-contained Small Learning 

Communities. 

Small 

Group 

Room 

Learning We have utilized one more image to represent the SLC 

Studio 

model. Figure 1-12, the High Tech Middle School in San 

AFigure 5.3: small learning community allows for greater 

Figure 1-9. 

Diego, California illustrates how a common area shared by 

flexibility Design in teaching Pattern #1e: and Learning learning Studio-based groups Small an SLC might be used. 

Learning Community (SLC). 

Figure 5.4: Science Labs at Oyster-Adams Bilingual School 

in Washington, DC 

The DCPS Facility Design guidelines call for “academic 

clusters” (early childhood, primary and intermediate); 

“houses” (middle school), and “academies” (high school). 

These three concepts can be broadly described as 

learning communities –smaller units within the school 

comprised of students and teachers who collaborate 

and learn together. They use a variety of instructional 

Figure 1-11. 

strategies and grouping sizes beyond the standard 

classroom. Research shows that the size of a learning 

community should be no larger than 150 students to 

maintain a sense of community where all are known and 

feel valued. 

1d: Areas for Hands-On Experimentation 

How well equipped are spaces for hands-on 

experimentation of the natural world through the 

sciences, mathematics and other curricula? 

Figure 1-10. 

Djidi Djidi Aboriginal School d 

Architect: Edgar Idle Wade. 

Djidi Djidi Aboriginal School, a 

Hands-on experimentation is critical for building 

understanding in the sciences and mathematics. Both 

advanced placement (AP) and international baccalaureate 

(IB) programs require hands-on experimentation and lab 

time. In fact, AP has recently increased its requirements 

for lab time. The following criteria were used to evaluate 

the effectiveness of learning spaces to support hands-on 

experimentation both inside and outside of labs.

Figure 5.5: Transparency allows for passive supervision of 

student-directed activity at Hillel School of Tampa, FL 

Figure 5.6: Campfire spaces support lectures and teacherdirected 

learning at Harbor City International School in 

Duluth, MN 

1e: Transparency 

To what extent are there visual connections between 

spaces to ease transitions from learning activities and 

support passive supervision of learning activities? 

Transparent boundaries, such as glass walls, between 

spaces encourage more flexible use of those areas and 

dynamic learning by allowing teachers to supervise 

students outside of their immediate classroom. 

Transparent spaces also encourage chance meetings 

and informal discussions that can enhance collaborative 

learning. 

1f: Campfire Spaces 

How well do campfire spaces function? 

Noted educational futurist David Thornburg outlines 

several “Primordial Learning Metaphors” to understand 

the modes through which we gain information. These 

metaphors set the stage for the variety of ways we learn 

and the types of spaces needed to support these ways 

of learning. The first of these spatial types is called the 

campfire, where one learns from stories of experts, 

teachers or student presenters. 

1g: Watering Hole 

What is the quality of watering hole spaces? 

One of David Thornburg’s Primordial Learning Metaphors, 

the watering hole, is a space where peers share 

information and learn from each other. 

69

70 

Figure 5.7: Cave spaces for quiet reading at Roosevelt 

Elementary in Medford, OR 

Figure 5.8: A broad range of furnishings support student 

comfort and study 

1h: Cave Space 

What is the quality of cave spaces? 

One of David Thornburg’s Primordial Learning Metaphors, 

the cave, is a place for introspection and learning from 

oneself. 

1i: Universal Design 

To what extent does the school provide for students of all 

mental and physical abilities? 

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles for 

curriculum development offer instructional goals, 

methods, materials and assessments that work for 

students of all abilities. UDL is now included in the 

Common Core Standards for all District schools? 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires 

physical accessibility to all principal learning spaces. UDL 

and ADA criteria can measure to what extent the physical 

environment supports the delivery of curricula that 

meet the needs of learners of all abilities. For more on 

Universal Design for Learning see the National Center on 

Universal Design for Learning: http://www.udlcenter.org 

1j: Furniture 

Is a variety of furnishings offered throughout school? 

A space used for a variety of learning activities should 

offer flexible furnishings to best support students while 

they are engaged in various activities. Additionally, 

furniture should be sized to ergonomically support 

student’s bodies as they develop and allow for the sort of 

movement that maintains blood flow and attention.

Figure 5.9: Students use mobile laptops for group 

research at GATES Senior High School in Lutz, FL 

Figure 5.10 A good teacher workroom provides space 

and resources for teachers and Professional Learning 

Communities to work together and collaborate 

1k: Technology 

How well is technology integrated with the curriculum 

and principal learning spaces? 

In order for students to engage in inquiry and projectbased 

learning, and build 21st century literacies and skills, 

they must have access to computing and communication 

technology. The physical environment should enable 

the use of this technology in everyday curricula to 

be seamless and support multiple ways of engaging 

technology. 

1l: Acoustics 

What is the quality of acoustics in principal learning 

areas? 

The relationship between poor acoustics and lowered 

academic achievement is well documented by a number 

of studies. Appropriate acoustics are critical for students 

to be able engage verbal presentations and even more 

critical in environments where multiple learning activities 

are taking place simultaneously. The criteria below are 

consistent with best practice as set forth by Acoustical 

Society of America (ASA). 

1m: Teacher Professional Space 

To what extent does school create a professional 

environment for teachers? 

To support DCPS’s professional learning communities 

(teaching teams) and teacher professional development, 

teachers should have professional office space to plan 

coursework, collaborate with colleagues and meet with 

parents. 

71

Welcoming Entry. 

m left). 

elcoming Entry at 

n Koulu (Metsola 

l), Finland. 

ment 

viting school entry will contain some 

hat speaks to what makes the school 

discussion, please see Figure 2-1, as 

Local Signature." 

y 

fabric canopy or a more elaborate 

covered entry is valuable. Parents 

ool with younger siblings in strollers 

nder their arms and appreciate a 

space between the school entry and 

place where they might be dropped 

m a car or bus and wait out a heavy 

turally, a covered entry provides more 

eating a ceremonial quality to the 

gure 2-2). 

wisdom that all schools need places 

ity (and this includes parents) can 

e community should, preferably, be 

72 

“Eyes on the 

Street” 

Office 

Community Space 

(also see Pattern #24) 

Student Display 

Covered 

Entry 

Community 

Space 

Signature 

Element 

Figure 5.11: A welcoming entry should be inviting to 

students, families, and members of the school community 

incorporated as a key entrance element. This serves two 

purposes. First, it adds to the welcome feeling of the school 

entry, and second, it enhances the security of the school. 

Communities can be welcomed into school in a variety 

of spaces. Located by the entrance, a so-called "parent/ 

community room" can be a multi-purpose space that 

allows parents and community members to hang up their 

coats, have meetings and make telephone calls, make 

copies, send faxes and access the Internet. Ideally such 

rooms should also have a mini-kitchenette where parents 

and community members can make coffee, obtain a soft 

drink or warm up lunch. 

Alternatively, the community room can serve as a 

workroom for parents and community, and there can be 

a separate place for informal meetings that connects the 

school to the outside world. In the case of Cristo Rey 

Jesuit High School in Minneapolis (Figure 2-3), the bright 

glassed-in entrance is a place for the community to meet 

and share ideas each morning. 

Figure 5.12: The library at Francis-Stevens Elementary 

School in Washington, DC offers books, Writeboards, and 

other media to students and teachers 

25 


TWO MODERNIZATION 

2a: Welcome Entry 

How welcoming is the entrance to the school? 

Research shows student achievement increases with 

greater parental and community involvement. The 

physical environment of the school should make parents 

and community members feel welcome, and provide 

space for them to be received and learn about the school. 

2b: Shared Media Resources 

To what extent are media resources distributed for justin-time 

access? 

To support inquiry and project-based curricula, students 

need access to digital and print media resources on 

demand. This set of criteria evaluates the ways in which 

the Library Media Center functions as “high technology 

information distribution center,” as described by the 

DCPS Design Guidelines. It determines the ways in 

which the Library Media Center is a place for students to 

connect with the world through books, communication 

technology, and information technology. 

2c: Student Display Space 

How extensive are student display spaces? 

Student achievement and work in progress should be 

celebrated and presented throughout the school to 

provide positive reinforcement to learners and inform the 

community within and outside of the school. This set of 

criteria evaluates the extent and quality of display space 

and systems.

Figure 5.13: Tiered music room at Francis-Stevens 

Education Campus in Washington, DC 

Figure 5.14: One of two gyms at Francis-Stevens 

Education Campus in Washington, DC 

2d: Arts Studios 

How well equipped are art labs? 

The visual arts provide an opportunity for student 

creative expression and learning through making. This 

set of criteria evaluates the effectiveness of visual arts 

space in supporting student work in a variety of media – 

physical and digital, and the flexibility of these spaces for 

different modes of art instruction. 

2e: Music and Performance 

To what extent is music and performance supported? 

The practice and performance of music and drama offer 

students an opportunity to build confidence and express 

themselves beyond verbal and written communication. 

This set of criteria evaluates the quality of space for 

music and performance. 

2f: Life Skills Areas 

To what extent is a life skills curriculum supported? 

The school should provide for the practical life skills, and 

emotional skills needed to become a whole, productive 

adult. This set of criteria evaluates the extent to which 

the facility supports programming and experiences that 

help students build life skills. 

2g: Health and Physical Fitness 

To what extent are health and physical fitness 

supported? 

The school environment should support student health 

and well-being, and offer opportunities to develop 

lifelong fitness habits. This set of criteria evaluates the 

quality of indoor and outdoor space for supporting 

student health and fitness through exercise and 

recreation. 

73

a 

ws how the 

he overall 

). 

r cafés at 

l, India. 

ernational 

Dennis 

r. 

dy of architectural work, in 

ollowing the publication of 

g book, does not appear to 

ild our homes, our towns and 

, Alexander's work has gained 

esented have begun to enter the 

ity theory, fractals and neural 

e cutting edge of science. The 

built environment and healthy 

er was pointing out are now 

y, we know that human brains 

understand and respond to 

r life and, particularly, to those 

nvironments. 

74 

Service Line 

Café 1 

Round tables for 4 

to 6, movable seats 

with backs. 

Café 2 

Kitchen 

Café 3 

Figure 5.15: Smaller scale cafeterias with a sense of 

community can help make lunchtime more comfortable 

and manageable 

Why a Pattern Language for 

Schools? 

Vista to nature 

and/or community 

We felt the need to develop a pattern language for schools 

for the simple reason that while Alexander's book is now 

beginning to influence the planning and design of healthy 

communities, transformation is painstakingly slow in 

the world of school design. Despite the fact that the 

educational establishment itself has embraced a number of 

innovative approaches over the years, architects often hear 

educators speak with a vocabulary reminiscent of their 

own childhood experiences in school buildings designed 

for a different time. 

Why do schools look the way they do? Why is there a chasm 

of School Design, does not 

between widely acknowledged best practice principles 

ed. The book draws upon our 

Figure 5.16: and A visually the actual transparent design of a majority entrance of at school Cristo facilities? 

lanners and the best practice 

Rey 

Why has the connection between learning research and 

er 20 countries, represented High School allows administrators to more easily monitor 

educational structures been so difficult to repair? These 

school designs that we who have has access to the school 

are the questions that we have been grappling with over 

om. 

the past decade as school planners. 

13 

2h: Bathrooms 

To what extent does the design of the bathroom meet 

needed standards of safety, privacy and cleanliness? 

This set of criteria evaluates the effectiveness of the 

bathrooms’ location and design, to support student 

safety, dignity and cleanliness. 

2i: Student Dining 

How effectively does the physical environment of the 

school provide for student nourishment, and support 

positive dining etiquette and social skills? 

Growing students need access to healthy, nourishing 

food. The size, location and arrangement of dining 

facilities often drives the school schedule, rather than 

the needs of students. This set of criteria evaluates the 

effectiveness of the learning environment in providing 

for student nutrition and the quality of the environment 

created for dining, developing social skills and etiquette. 

2j: Safe Learning Spaces 

How effectively does the school facility provide for 

the safety and security of students and teachers, and 

community? 

The school building must provide a physically safe place 

for students to learn, as well as the security to explore, 

intellectually and emotionally grow, and thrive. This set 

of criteria evaluates the effectiveness of the school facility 

in support student and teacher safety, and security.

Figure 5.17: Excellent access to daylight and exterior 

views in the auditorium of Prospect Learning Center in 

Washington, DC 

Figure 5.18: Covered decks connect indoors and outdoors at 

Shorecrest Preparatory School in St. Petersburg, FL 


THREE MODERNIZATION 

3a: Daylighting 

To what extent does natural daylight penetrate learning 

areas? 

Appropriate daylighting strategies can improve student 

performance as much as 20 percent. In addition, 

daylighting indoor learning environments is a sustainable 

design strategy, as it reduces electrical lighting and 

cooling loads. This criteria measures both the quantity 

and quality of daylight in the learning environment. 

3b: Full Spectrum Lighting 

What is the quality of artificial lighting? 

Poor indoor lighting conditions often contribute to 

many symptoms of “sick building syndrome,” such as 

tension headaches and fatigue, and reduces the legibility 

of learning material. Good indoor lighting creates a 

healthier, more pleasant learning environment. 

3c: Exterior Vistas 

To what extent do interior spaces have views and vistas? 

Views to the outside, particularly onto natural scenery, 

improve students’ emotional and intellectual well-being. 

3d: Indoor-Outdoor Connection 

What is the quality of the indoor-outdoor connections? 

Strong indoor-outdoor connections allow for seamless 

movement from indoor learning activities to outdoor 

learning and engagement with the natural world. 

These connections reduce lost learning time in moving 

students, and increases opportunities for students to 

access the outdoors safely. 

75

76 

Figure 5.19: Students dig in the school garden at Learning 

Gate Elementary School in Lutz, FL 

Figure 5.20: Rain barrel at Garrison Elementary School in 

Washington, DC 

3e: Outdoor Learning 

How well is outdoor learning supported? 

Student engagement of the outdoor urban and 

natural environment fosters a deep understanding 

of neighborhood and community, environmental 

stewardship and makes learning fun. This set of criteria 

evaluates the effectiveness of the outdoor learning 

spaces on the school site. 

3f: Natural Ventilation 

What is the quality of natural ventilation? 

Adequate fresh air contributes to a student’s readiness 

to learn by reducing fatigue, increasing general comfort 

and by making a direct connection to the outdoors. 

Natural ventilation can cut down on ventilation and airconditioning 

costs. 

3h: Sustainable Elements/Building as 3D 

Textbook 

To what extent has sustainability been considered in 

school design? 

Teaching students the principles, applications and 

purposes behind sustainable practices is made tangible 

and meaningful for students when eco-friendly features 

are utilized as artifacts and resources for study, enabling 

them to draw lessons from their experiences within the 

building.

Figure 5.21: Local architectural styles seen in Murch 

Elementary School in Washington, DC 

Figure 5.22: Parent Resource Center in Aiton Elementary 

School in Washington, DC encourages parents to become 

part of the school community 

3i: Local Signature 

To what extent does the facility design connect 

students to the culture, history, and ethos of the local 

neighborhood and the District of Columbia? 

This set of criteria evaluate the ways in which the school 

facility reflects the culture, history and ethos of the 

District of Columbia at large, and the local neighborhood 

in which the school is located, and the ways in which it 

contributes to the neighborhood. 

3j: Connected to Community 

To what extent is the school connected to its surrounding 

community? 

This set of criteria evaluates the ways in which the school 

engages the community, and its resources, as well as the 

ways in which it provides resources to the community. 

3k: Aesthetics 

What is the quality of aesthetics? 

The learning environment should be inviting, inspiring 

and pleasant. A school facility that invites and inspires 

students is more likely to encourage them to engage 

the school. A beautiful school becomes a point of pride 

for the community and encourages strong parental and 

community involvement and support. 

77

78 

FINDINGS 

These findings refer to the neighborhood cluster-based 

maps on the following pages. The findings of the facility 

efficacy study follow the map-based studies. 


The greatest facility condition need for DCPS schools 

are concentrated in neighborhood clusters bordering 

Rock Creek Park, the north point of the District, Capitol 

Hill, and several clusters east of the Anacostia River (see 

Figure 5.23). 

There were 14,651 DCPS students (based on the October 

2011 audited enrollment) enrolled in clusters that are 

classified in moderately high need of facility condition 

improvement. There are no clusters that rank at the 

high need category. 

There were 6,964 DCPS students (based on the October 

2011 audited enrollment) enrolled in schools in clusters 

that are classified in low to very low need of facility 

condition improvement. Those clusters classified as low 

to very low need of facility condition are the clusters 

where full modernizations have taken place at some 

point from 1998 to 2012. 


Facility quality needs are mixed throughout the city, but 

tend to be greatest in neighborhood clusters bordering 

Rock Creek Park and east of the Anacostia River. Facility 

quality needs were particularly high for elementary 

schools east of the Anacostia River (see Figure 5.24). 

EQUITY 

Clusters of high facility condition and quality need 

roughly correspond to clusters where total facility 

expenditure has been the lowest from 1998 to 2012. 

These clusters are located along the edges and through 

much of the core of the District (Figure 5.25). 

Projected facility expenditure from 1998-2018 begins 

to address some of the clusters of high facility condition 

and quality need along the northern edges and core of 

the district, and some clusters east of the Anacostia River 

(Figures 5.26 and 5.27). 

CLUSTER ENROLLMENT PARTICIPATION 

Travel distance for both Elementary and all students is 

lowest just west of Rock Creek Park, towards the center 

of the district, and many clusters east of the Anacostia 

River. Highest travel distances occur in clusters clusters 

along the northeast District boundary, while cluster 44 

(east of the Potomac River) has the highest travel distance 

in the District (Figures 5.28 and 5.29).

80 


CONDITION 

AVERAGE FACILITY CONDITION NEED FOR DCPS SCHOOLS BY 

Average Facility Condition Need for DCPS 

NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER 

Schools by Neighborhood Cluster 

Facility condi on data is derived from the facility assessments 

in the 2008 Master Plan, the last reliable data point for all 

DCPS facili es at the me of prin ng. 

Figure 5.23 

13 

11 

14 

4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



5 - High Need (None represented on this map) 

4 - Moderate-High Need 

3 - Moderate Need 

2 - Moderate-Low Need 

1 - Low Need 

0 - Very Low Need 



21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

Water 

29 

30 

31 

33


QUALITY 

FACILITY QUALITY NEED FOR ALL DCPS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS BY 

Facility Quality Need for all DCPS and Charter 

NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER 

Schools by Neighborhood Cluster 

Facility quality data is derived from the Charter Facility 

Eff ec veness Survey and the moderniza on phase 

completed for the DCPS schools. 

Figure 5.24 

13 

11 

14 

4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



5 - High Need 

4 - Moderate-High Need 

3 - Moderate Need 

2 - Moderate-Low Need 

1 - Low Need 

0 - Very Low Need 



21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

81

82 

EQUITY 

EQUITY 

1998-2012 DCPS TOTAL DOLLARS SPENT PER CLUSTER 

1998-2012 DCPS Total Dollars Spent Per 

Cluster 

Moderniza on dollars data supplied by 21st Century School 

Fund. 

Figure 5.25 

13 

11 

14 

4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 


No Money Spent in Cluster 

>$225 Million 

$150 to $225 Million 

$75 to $150 Million 

EQUITY 

EQUITY 

1998-2018 DCPS AVERAGE MODERNIZATION DOLLARS PER 

1998-2018 DCPS Average Modernization 

SQUARE FOOT 

Dollars Per Square Foot 

Total dollars between 1998-2018 divided by school gross 

square footage (GSF). 

Moderniza on dollars data supplied by 21st Century 

School Fund. 

Figure 5.26 

13 

11 

14 

4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 


Water 


$451 - $600/GSF 

$301 - $450/GSF 

$151 - $300/GSF 

$1 - $150/GSF 



21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

31 

33 

83

84 

EQUITY 

EQUITY 

1998-2018 DCPS AVERAGE MODERNIZATION DOLLARS PER 

1998-2018 DCPS Average Modernization 

ENROLLED STUDENT 

Dollars Per Enrolled Student 

Enrollment data for both DCPS and Charter Schools was 

gathered from the Offi ce of the State Superintendant of 

Educa on (OSSE) October 2011 Audited Enrollment. 

Moderniza on dollars data supplied by 21st Century 

School Fund. 

Figure 5.27 

13 

11 

14 

4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



>100,000 

$80,001 - $100,000 

$60,001 - $80,000 

$40,001 - $60,000 

$20,001 - $40,000 

$1 - $20,000 



21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33

TRAVEL DISTANCE 


AVERAGE DISTANCE TRAVELED FOR ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 

Average Distance Traveled for Elementary Students 

FROM HOME TO SCHOOL BY NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER 

from Home to School by Neighborhood Cluster 

Travel distance data was provided by the Offi ce of the State 

Superintendant of Educa on (OSSE). 

Figure 5.28 

13 

11 

14 

4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 


4.00+ Miles 

3.25 - 3.99 Miles 

2.50 - 3.24 Miles 

1.75 - 2.49 Miles 

1.01 - 1.74 Miles 

0.00 - 1.00 Miles 



21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

85

86 



QUALITATIVE EXTENT OF TRAVEL FOR STUDENTS FROM HOME 

Qualitative Extent of Travel for Students from 

TO SCHOOL BY NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER 

Home to School by Neighborhood Cluster 

Travel distance data was provided by the Offi ce of the State 

Superintendant of Educa on (OSSE). 

Acceptable travel distances for elementary school 

students are generally less than those for high 

school students. Thus, rather than consider travel 

distance purely in miles for all grade levels, 

a qualita ve scale was created to re ect 

appropriate travel distances. 

10 

Figure 5.29 

13 

11 

14 

4 

42 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

18 

2 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 


5 - High Travel Distance 

4 - Moderate-High Travel Distance 

3 - Moderate Travel Distance 

2 - Moderate-Low Travel Distance 

1 - Low Travel Distance 

0 - Very Low Travel Distance 



21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

38 

26 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33

EFEI Score 

50% 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

EFEI 

Total Scores 

Figure 5.30 presents the total EFEI scores for all 36 of 

the assessed DCPS schools that have yet to receive 

modernizations. The EFEI scores for DCPS schools yet 

to be modernized tended to be fairly low overall. While 

these scores reflect the quality of the educational 

facility, they do not necessarily represent the efforts 

of educational leaders in the schools and the District. 

During the assessment walkthroughs, the assessors 

found examples of school leadership working to provide 

a 21st-century education to its students despite facility 

limitations. These efforts include the following: 

42% 

» At Prospect Learning Campus, the teacher 

workroom was well-equipped, but was not 

centrally located or integrated into the learning 

community. To promote greater use of this 

amenity, teachers were encouraged to keep 

their work desks in the collaboration room 

instead of their individual classrooms. 

37% 39% 

36% 

40% 

47% 

32% 

40% 

36% 

34% 

45% 

39% 40% 

34% 

School EFEI Score 

42% 42% 

37% 39% 

41% 

School Name 

Figure 5.30: Total EFEI Scores for Assessed Schools That Have Not Yet Received Modernizations 

32% 

» At Langdon Education Campus, a former 

open classroom space was transformed into 

the Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)—a 

multidisciplinary technology lab. While students 

use and benefit from this lab on a regular basis, 

the space itself lacks adequate daylight, visual 

clarity and aesthetic quality. 

» Kramer Middle School has just initiated a 

1:1 laptop-blended classroom program that 

provides students with a technology-rich, highly 

individualized learning experience. Although 

Kramer’s traditional facility does not provide 

spaces designed to support this innovative 

curriculum, the school is working to create a new 

teacher collaborative workroom and a cyber café 

to enrich the student experience. 

23% 

40% 

36% 

42% 

36% 

48% 

39% 

33% 

29% 

35% 

40% 

37% 

48% 

44% 

38% 

33% 

87

88 

Avg % Pattern Score 



100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 

Figure 5.31: EFEI Pattern Scores by Modernization Phase 

Phase 1 Average Scores 

Pattern Name 


Pattern Name 


Pattern Name

Persistent Areas of Need 

Figure 5.31 examines what patterns from the EFEI 

assessment reveal pervasive elements of need across 

DCPS schools. 

» Flexibility: EFEI score 29.4 percent, 11th lowest 

score (out of 33 patterns) 

Small or crowded classrooms, restrictive 

furnishings (such as tablet-arm desks), lack of 

breakout spaces and confining corridors limit 

the potential for flexible student activity and 

teacher collaboration in many DCPS schools. 

» Project Based Learning: EFEI score 23.2 percent, 

8th lowest scoring pattern 

Many DCPS schools scored low on PBL 

support spaces—a finding corroborated 

by teacher and principal reports of spatial 

impediments to implementing project-based 

learning curricula. In particular, students in 

many schools lacked space to collaborate and 

execute large projects. 

» Learning Communities: EFEI score 22.8 percent, 

7th lowest scoring pattern 

Contrary to DCPS Facility Design Guidelines’ 

goals of establishing learning communities 

or academies within its schools, many 

of these older school buildings are 

departmentalized—classrooms are clustered 

by subject instead of by grade or student 

grouping. This restrictive organization and 

a pervasive lack of spaces for collaborative 

teaching and learning inhibit the potential 

of schools to create functioning student 

communities for learning. 

» Furniture: EFEI score 18.9 percent, 5th lowest 

scoring pattern 

Many of the examined schools had inflexible 

furnishings, such as tablet-arm desks and 

hard plastic chairs, and few or no softseating 

options. Furnishings can have a great 

impact on learning spaces and are relatively 

inexpensive compared to construction costs; 

strong efforts should be made to ensure more 

dynamic and flexible furnishings are provided 

during Phase 1 modernizations. 

» Sustainable Elements: EFEI score 5 percent, 

lowest scoring pattern of all 

A few of the surveyed schools showed a 

keen interest in increasing the sustainability 

of their facility and raising their students’ 

environmental awareness; Payne Elementary 

School, for example, has formed a partnership 

with the United States Green Buildings Council 

to build outdoor classrooms and other green 

networks in the school. The modernization 

process is a unique opportunity for DCPS to 

improve the sustainability of its schools across 

the district. 

89

Title 

90 

50% 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

20 

13 

Figure 5.32: EFEI Scores by CIP Construction Date 

EFEI Score 

50% 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

1880 

1885 

1911 

1923 

1923 1927 

1928 

Figure 5.33: EFEI Scores by School Vintage 

EFEI Score by CIP Construction Date 

20 

14 

School Name 

EFEI Score by School Vintage 

1930 (major additions 

in 1950's & 1970's) 

1930 

1929 

1933 

1932 

1932 

1931 

1932 

1931 

1943 

1939 

1941 

1940 

1943 

1943 1959 

1959 

School Name 

20 

15 

1959 

1960 

1962 

1964 

1967 

20 

16 

1969 

1973 

2017 

2018 

1974 

1976 

No 

Date 

1977 

1978 

1980

Capital Improvement Plan Construction 

Dates 

This chart seeks to detect whether the Capital 

Improvement Plan construction dates align with facilities 

in urgent need (Figure 5.32). No strong correlations were 

found. 

Original School Construction Data 

EFEI assessors noticed strong design similarities 

among schools of similar “vintage” (original date of 

construction). This chart seeks to determine how vintage 

relates to EFEI scores (see Figure 5.33). 

» 1880s-1910s. With consistently higher EFEI 

scores (41 to 47 percent), school buildings of 

this era have unique architectural features and 

a tendency towards “learning community” 

models with academic clusters and shared 

common spaces. All facilities reviewed have 

good daylight and stimulating views to the 

outside. 

» 1920s-1940s. Schools built during these 

decades have a medium range of EFEI scores (29 

to 42 percent). They typically feature doubleloaded 

corridors lined with isolated small- to 

medium-sized classrooms. Facilities tend to have 

good daylight and view access in most spaces. 

» 1940s-1960s. With medium to higher EFEI 

scores (33 to 47 percent), all these facilities 

have double-loaded corridors with sidelight 

windows into classrooms that allow for a 

little more transparency than in most schools 

assessed. Construction of this era is extremely 

recognizable and variations in aesthetics or 

sense of welcome in these buildings is largely 

related to facility condition. Most facilities have 

good daylight and views to the outside. 

» 1970s-1980s. The open classroom-model 

dominates buildings of this era, with great 

variation in facility success and quality (both 

reported by school leadership and reflected in 

EFEI scores, which range from 23 to 47 percent). 

Acoustical quality, daylight and views tend to 

be limited in these facilities, in some instances, 

creating highly undesirable spaces. The more 

successful of these schools have common spaces 

within their academic clusters as well as spaces 

suited to a variety of student groupings and 

activities. 

CHARTER FACILITY EFFICACY ANALYSIS 

These charts examine what elements of need are 

revealed by the charter Facility Efficacy Analysis data 

(Figure 5.34). Scores express the level of sufficiency for 

each question across the surveyed charter schools. 

» Specialized Learning Areas (Arts and Sciences): 

34.8 percent 

Of the surveyed charter schools, 57.7 percent 

indicated a lack of space for any kind of 

specialty classrooms, messy spaces such as 

art and science labs in particular. Montessori 

and early childhood schools noted that such 

spaces are integrated into primary learning 

spaces. 

» Outdoor Learning: 43.5 percent 

Like DCPS, many charter schools have limited 

outdoor learning spaces. In an urban area 

like the District, it is increasingly important to 

provide students opportunities for outdoor 

learning on a regular basis. Of the charter 

schools, 54.9 percent reported no outdoor 

learning facilities. 

91

92 

» Space Variety: 50.0 percent 

Spatial variety creates greater opportunities 

for flexibility in program and curriculum. 

Many school cited multipurpose spaces and 

libraries essential for large gatherings, but 

35.2 percent found these room types lacking 

in their facilities. 

» Health & Physical Fitness: 50.0 percent 

1.00 

0.90 

0.80 

0.70 

0.60 

0.50 

0.40 

0.30 

0.20 

0.10 

0.00 

Physical activity and play are critical to 

students physical, mental and academic 

well-being. Several schools indicated 

multipurpose spaces and outdoor recreation 

facilities of various types, though 38 percent 

of charter schools noted they have no such 

spaces at their disposal. 

Space 

Variety 

Analysis Average Measure Scores 

Welcoming 

Entry 

Specialized 

Learning 

Spaces (Arts 

& Sciences) 

Health & 

Physical 

Fitness 

Figure 5.34: Charter Facility Average Scores by Question 

Daylight Outdoor 

Learning 

Indoor Air 

Quality & 

Comfort 

Connected 

to 

Community 

Technology

CHAPTER 6 

Prioritization 

Framework

94 

DETERMINING THE NEED 

UNDERSTANDING 

FACILITY NEED 

RANKING OF THE DATA 

No single unit of measurement can capture the total 

need of a school or facility. Therefore, 14 measures were 

identified to determine the need of DCPS and charter 

school facilities for this study. They were chosen based 

on available data from the Office of Deputy Mayor for 

Education, DC Public Schools and Public Charter Schools. 

The 14 measures are divided into five overarching 

themes (described in greater detail later in this chapter): 

» Current Fit - How well does an existing DCPS 

and charter school facility accommodate the 

current needs of the enrolled student body? 

» 2017 Projected Fit - How well will the existing 

DCPS and charter school facilities accommodate 

student enrollment in 2017? 

» 1998-2012 Modernization Equity - Where have 

DCPS modernization dollars been spent? 

» Neighborhood Cluster Characteristics - Various 

neighborhood characteristics influence the 

measurement of need. The distance traveled 

to school and the number of children per acre, 

now and in the future 

» Facility Condition and Quality - What is the 

physical condition of the facility? How does the 

facility encourage quality education 

SCORING 

For each measure the total range of data among all 

neighborhood clusters was analyzed to establish 

thresholds from lowest to highest need. The thresholds 

for each measure were then used as a relative scale of 

need, based on the data range. The data range is sorted 

into five or six thresholds ranks to determine a “score.” 

Scoring is based on a scale of 0 to 5 wherein zero 

indicates no facility need and five indicates the greatest 

need. For some of the measures, one (1) is the lowest 

score possible when the we felt there should be some 

need attributed to the lowest ranking. 

WEIGHTING 

The planning team has given each measure a weight that 

reflects the prioritization of the guiding principles and 

priorities expressed by the Executive Committee (see 

Guiding Principles in Chapter 2). Weighting increases the 

impact of certain measures on the total score for each 

neighborhood cluster. For each measure, the score is 

multiplied by the assigned weight of that measure to 

produce the index. Together, the weights add up to 70 

with a maximum total index of 350, which indicates the 

greatest facility need. 

RANKING 

All of the scores from the 14 measures are added 

together to produce the total index. The total index is 

then compared to a quintile scale that ranges from low to 

high facility needs.

96 

CURRENT FIT NEED 

ASSESSMENT 

How well does an existing DCPS and charter school 

facility accommodate the current needs of the enrolled 

student body? The following measures were applied to 

answer that question. 

AVERAGE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE PER 

ENROLLED STUDENT 

This measurement considers the average square footage 

per actual student in the facility. The schools with the 

lowest gross square footage (GSF) per enrolled student 

are determined to have the highest need. 

Three scales were developed for elementary, middle 

and high schools. Each scale is loosely connected to the 

DCPS guideline of 150 GSF for elementary schools, 170 

GSF for middle schools and 190 GSF per student for high 

schools with 80 percent being a targeted utilization rate 

of enrollment to facility capacity for all schools. For each 

neighborhood cluster, the school scores were averaged. 

The scales for this measure are as follows: 

High School and Education Campus (MS/ 

HS) 

GSF/Enrolled Student (Weight 4) Score 

< 100 GSF per Enrolled Student 5 

100 – 124 GSF per Enrolled Student 4 




>= 250 GSF per Enrolled Student 0 

Middle School & Education Campus (MS/ 

EC1/EC2) 







>= 220 GSF per Enrolled Student 0 

Elementary School (ES) 






125 – 189 GSF per Enrolled Student 

>= 190 GSF per Enrolled Student 

1 

AVERAGE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 

STUDENT CAPACITY 

What is the average space designed for each student 

when the school is at full capacity? The schools with the 

lower GSF per student capacity are determined to have a 

higher need. 

Again, the scale is loosely connected to the DCPS 

guideline of 150 GSF for elementary schools, 170 GSF 

for middle schools and 190 GSF per student for high 

schools with 80 percent being a targeted utilization rate 

of enrollment to facility capacity for all schools. For each 

neighborhood cluster, the school scores were averaged. 

The scales for this measure is as follows:

High School and Education Campus (MS/ 

HS) 


< 100 GSF per Student Capacity 5 

100 – 124 GSF per Student Capacity 4 




>= 200 GSF per Student Capacity 0 

Middle School & Education Campus (MS/ 

EC1/EC2) 







>= 175 GSF per Student Capacity 0 

Elementary School (ES) 






125 – 149 GSF per Student Capacity 

>= 150 GSF per Student Capacity 

1 

AVERAGE UTILIZATION 

Utilization is determined by dividing the actual student 

enrollment by the designed student capacity. Facilities 

that have high utilization are determined to have the 

highest need. 

The scale use 80 percent as a target utilization rate of 

enrollment to facility capacity for all schools. Any school 

with less than 50 percent utilization receives a score of 

zero (0). The scale for this measure is as follows: 

Utilization (Weight 4) Score 

>= 90% Utilization 5 

80% – 89% Utilization 4 




< 50% Utilization 0 

CURRENT FIT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO 

THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES 

GP1: Focus on equity planning. 

The amount of GSF should be equitably distributed so 

that all students have access to schools that are not 

overcrowded. 

GP2: Build facilities around quality 

educational programs. 

A neighborhood cluster that exhibits a high indication of 

need for current fit may show that it lacks sufficient space 

for programming options beyond standard classroom 

space. To support specialty programming like the arts, 

technology and physical education, more space per 

student is needed than in typical classrooms. 

GP3: Align Investments with Projected 

Student Demand. 

Clusters that are designated as high need are at their 

designed capacity or over capacity and, therefore, cannot 

support additional demand. 

97

98 



CURRENT FIT 

Current Fit 



Figure 6.1 

13 




11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

2 

18 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



High Need 


Moderate Need 


Low Need 


21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

26 

38 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33

2017 PROJECTED FIT 

How well will the existing DCPS and charter school 

facilities accommodate student enrollment in 2017? 

This section answers that question with scoring of 

neighborhood clusters based on enrollment changes and 

needs. 

ENROLLMENT CHANGE 

The neighborhood clusters that are projected to have 

the highest increase of students are determined to have 

the highest need. 

Scoring is based upon the degree of change in 

enrollment with the lowest being set at zero if a decline 

in enrollment is expected. The difference in change is 

divided into quintiles or fifths. If a neighborhood cluster 

is projected to decline in enrollment, that cluster will 

receive a score of zero (0). The scale for this measure is 

as follows: 

Enrollment Change (Weight 3) Score 

1,737 – 2,170 Enrollment Increase 5 

1,303 – 1,736 Enrollment Increase 4 

869 – 1,302 Enrollment Increase 3 

435 – 868 Enrollment Increase 2 

1 – 435 Enrollment Increase 1 

0 Enrollment Increase 0 

Unmet Need 

In what neighborhood clusters will extra seats be needed 

to accommodate the projected student population? The 

clusters with the highest unmet need are determined to 

have the highest need. 

Scoring is based on the greatest and lowest numbers of 

seats needed to meet forecasted student enrollment 

demand, with the lowest score set at zero (0) if the lowest 

number of seats is a negative number. The difference 

in the number of seats needed from the lowest to the 

highest is divided into quintiles. If a neighborhood cluster 

does not require any more seats, that cluster will receive 

a score of zero (0). The scale for this measure is as 

follows: 

Unmet Need (Weight 8) Score 

1,598 – 1,996 Seats Needed 5 

1,199 – 1,597 Seats Needed 4 

799 – 1,198 Seats Needed 3 

400 – 798 Seats Needed 2 


0 Seats Needed 0 

Pre-School Unmet Need 

In what neighborhood clusters will extra seats be needed 

to accommodate the forecasted pre-school student 

population? The clusters with the highest unmet need 

are determined to have the highest need. 

Scoring is based on the greatest and lowest numbers 

of seats needed with the lowest score set at zero if 

the lowest number of seats is a negative number. The 

difference in the number of seats needed from the lowest 

to the highest is divided into quintiles. If a neighborhood 

cluster does not require any more seats, that cluster will 

receive a score of zero (0). The scale for this measure is 

as follows: 

Pre-School Unmet Need (Weight 4) Score 






0 Seats Needed 0 

99

100 

2017 PROJECTED FIT AND ITS 

RELATIONSHIP TO THE GUIDING 

PRINCIPLES 


Capital resources should be allocated to neighborhood 

clusters showing strong forecasted demand. 

GP3: Align investments with projected 

student demand. 

This guiding principle was created specifically to respond 

to forecasted student demand. 

GP4: Invest in cradle-to-career educational 

opportunities. 

Clusters designated as “low need” may have enough 

facility space to accommodate additional community 

programs, such as pre-K and work training.



2017 PROJECTED FIT 

2017 Projected Fit 



Figure 6.2 

13 




11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

2 

18 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



High Need 


Moderate Need 


Low Need 


21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

26 

38 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

101

102 

1998-2012 DCPS 

MODERNIZATION 

EQUITY 

Where have DCPS modernization dollars been spent? 

Where do dollars need to be spent in order to ensure 

all DC public schools are high quality facilities? This 

section looks at school needs based on funds allotted to 

students and facilities. 

DOLLARS SPENT PER ENROLLED 

STUDENT (DCPS ONLY) 

How much money per enrolled student has been spent 

at each facility? The facilities with the lowest dollars 

spent per student are determined to have the highest 

need. 

Scoring is based on the greatest and lowest amounts of 

money spent per enrolled student. The scale maximum 

is set at $65,00 per enrolled student, meaning that if 

more than $65,000 is spent per enrolled student, there 

is no need and the score is zero. The difference in the 

amount of money spent per enrolled student from the 

lowest to $65,000 is divided into quintiles. The scale for 

this measure is as follows: 

Dollars per Enrolled Student (Weight 5) Score 

$65,000 0 

DOLLARS SPENT PER STUDENT 

CAPACITY (DCPS ONLY) 

How much money has been spent in each facility based 

on its capacity? The facilities with the lowest dollars 

spent per student capacity are determined to have the 

highest need. 

Scoring is based on the greatest and lowest amounts of 

money spent per student capacity. The scale maximum 

is set at $50,000 per student capacity, meaning that it is 

more than $50,000 is spent per student capacity, there 

is no need and the score is zero. The $50,000 is about 80 

percent of the $65,000 maximum set for dollars spent 

per enrolled student. This amount is in keeping with the 

80 percent utilization target. Difference in the amount 

of money spent per student capacity from the lowest 

to the highest is divided into quintiles. The scale for this 

measure is as follows: 

Dollars per Student Capacity (Weight 2) Score 

$50,000 0

DOLLARS SPENT PER GSF (DCPS ONLY) 

How much money has been spent on each facility based 

on its size? The facilities with the lowest money spent 

per gross square foot (GSF) are determined to have the 

highest need. 

Scoring is based upon the greatest and lowest amounts 

of money spent per GSF. The scale maximum is set at 

$250 per GSF, meaning that if more than $250 per GSF 

was spent, there is no need and the score is zero. The 

difference in the amount of money spent per GSF from 

the lowest to the highest is divided into quintiles. The 

scale for this measure is as follows: 

Dollars per GSF (Weight 8) Score 

$250 per GSF 0 

MODERNIZATION EQUITY AND ITS 

RELATIONSHIP TO THE GUIDING 

PRINCIPLES 

GP1: Equity-focused planning 

It is important to the District to equitably distribute 

resources across the city. Central to this, analyzing 

equitable allocation of resources to determine 

where the dollars have been spent to date on facility 

modernizations. 

103

104 



1998-2012 DCPS MODERNIZATION EQUITY 

1998-2012 DCPS Modernization Equity 



Figure 6.3 

13 




11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

2 

18 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



High Need 


Moderate Need 


Low Need 


21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

26 

38 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33

NEIGHBORHOOD 

CLUSTER 

CHARACTERISTICS 

Various neighborhood characteristics influence the 

measurement of need. The distance traveled to school 

and the number of children per acre, now and in the 

future, are characteristics used in this study. 


This measure scores the average distance traveled 

to school for each student by neighborhood cluster 

for elementary, middle, and high schools. The 

neighborhood clusters with the greatest travel distance 

have the greatest need. 

Three scales were developed for elementary, middle, 

and high schools. The minimum distance traveled before 

a cluster is classified as having a need is different for 

each school type. This minimum scale is set as follows: 

one mile for elementary schools; two miles for middle 

schools; and three miles for high schools. The difference 

in the established minimum for each school type and the 

greatest distance traveled for each school type is then 

divided into quintiles. For each neighborhood cluster, 

the scores were averaged. The scales for this measure 

are as follows: 

High School Travel Distance 

High School Travel Distance (Weight 5) Score 

5.55 – 6.19 Miles Traveled 5 





106 

2017 PROJECTED NO. OF SCHOOL- 

AGED CHILDREN PER ACRE 

The 2017 projected number of school-aged children per 

acre is determined by dividing the projected number 

of school-aged children by the total acreage in the 

neighborhood cluster. The clusters with the greatest 

projected number of school-aged children per acre have 

the greatest need. 

Scoring is based upon the greatest and lowest number 

of school-aged children per acre. The difference in the 

number of children per acre is divided into quintiles. The 

score for this measure is as follows: 

Children per Acre (Weight 5) Score 

4.96 – 6.09 Children per Acre 5 






NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER CHARACTERISTICS 

Neighborhood Cluster Characteristics 


» Average Travel Distance 

» Current No. of School Aged Children per Acre 

» 2017 No. of School Aged Children per Acre 

Figure 6.4 

13 

11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

2 

18 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



High Need 


Moderate Need 


Low Need 


21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

26 

38 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

107

108 


AND QUALITY 

What is the physical condition of the facility? How 

does the facility encourage quality education? These 

questions are answered in this section by scoring DCPS 

school settings. 


What is the physical state of the facility, considering 

elements such as the roof, windows and heating 

and cooling system? The facilities with the highest 

physical condition score are determined to have the 

greatest need. This measure pertains only to the DCPS 

only through the 2008 FCI (see chapter 5 for further 

explanation). There was no relevant data for charter 

schools. 

The scale below is the result of the data collection 

and interpretation as outlined in the Facility Condition 

section of Chapter 5. 

Condition (Weight 5) Score 

>= 86% Condition Score 5 

51% – 85% Condition Score 4 

26% – 50% Condition Score 3 

1% – 25% Condition Score 

Weight = 5 

1 


What is the educational efficacy of the facility? Facility 

quality was measured differently for DCPS than for 

charter schools. For a thorough description, refer to 

Appendix G. The facilities with the highest quality 

score are determined to have the greatest need. The 

scale below is the result of the data collection and 

interpretation as outlined in the Facility Quality section of 

Chapter 5. 

Quality (Weight 5) Score 

>= 70% Efficacy Score 5 

54% – 69% Efficacy Score 4 



1% – 19% Efficacy Score 

Weight = 5 

1 

FACILITY CONDITION AND QUALITY 

AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE GUIDING 

PRINCIPLES 



programming. Facility condition and quality may also 

influence parent and student perceptions about school 

quality. 


Every child in every neighborhood should have access to 

a high quality facility that is in good condition. 

GP2: Build facilities around quality 

educational programs. 

High quality facilities support high quality educational 

programming. 

GP3: Align investments with projected 

student demand. 

In areas with high student demand, it is critical that 

facilities are in good condition as they affect a higher 

percentage of students.



FACILITY CONDITION AND QUALITY 

Facility Condition and Quality 



Figure 6.5 

13 



11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

2 

18 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



High Need 


Moderate Need 


Low Need 


21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

26 

38 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

109

110 

Facility Needs Measures and Weights in 

Relation to the Guiding Principles 

Topic and Measure Weight Equity Focused Planning 

Guiding Principles (in priority order) 

Build Facilities around 

Quality Educational 

Programs 

Align Investments with 

Projected Student 

Demand 

Existing Fit 10 

1. Average GSF per Enrolled 

Student 

4 X X X 

2. Average GSF per Student 

Capacity 

2 X X X 

3. Average Utilization (Enrolled 

Student / Student Capacity) 

4 X X X 

Invest in the 

Commitment to Cradle 

to Career Educational 

Opportunities 

2017 Projected Fit 15 

4. Enrollment Change 3 X 

5. Unmet Need 8 X 

6. Pre‐School Unmet Need 4 X X 

1998‐2012 Modernization Equity 15 

7. Dollars Spent per Enrolled 

Student 

5 X 

8. Dollars Spent per Student 

Capacity 

2 X 

9. Dollars Spent per GSF 8 X 

Increase Collaboration 

and Partnership among 

Service Providers 

Neighborhood Cluster Characteristics 20 

10. Travel Distance 5 X X X 

11. Current No. of School‐Aged 

Children per Acre 

10 X X 

12. 2017 Projected No. of School‐ 

Aged Children per Acre 

5 X X 

Facility Condition and Quality 10 

13. Condition 5 X X X 

14. Quality 5 X X X 

Figure 6.6 

TOTAL WEIGHTS 70 

Community Centered 

Schools



COMBINED ASSESSMENT OF NEED 

Determining the Combined Facility Needs 






















Figure 6.7 

13 

11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

2 

18 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



High Need 


Moderate Need 


Low Need 






2012/2013 and 2013/2014 

School Years 


21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

26 

38 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

111

CHAPTER 7 

Recommendations

114 

STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS 

The recommendations of this Master Facilities Plan are 

grounded in stakeholder input and aimed at providing 

equitable access to a quality school for every student in 

the District. 

To achieve this goal, the plan proposes a number of 

strategic recommendations, both short-term and longterm, 

to address the greatest needs suggested by the 

data. 

Much of the work of the plan focused on developing 

a process for making strategic facility investments 

informed by a comprehensive set of data and extensive 

stakeholder engagement. The recommendations are 

offered in the spirit of lessons learned and opportunities 

revealed through our work that will make future plans 

even more strategic and robust. 

AREAS OF GREATEST 

NEED 

The findings of greatest need are geographically based 

on the neighborhood cluster. This apolitical geographic 

unit extends across wards and is large enough to 

include multiple schools, both DCPS and charters, and 

small enough to analyze the city at a grain that reveals 

patterns of need across the city. Since the neighborhood 

cluster has also been used by other studies conducted 

by the city, the findings of this study can be considered 

alongside that other work. 

The areas of greatest need were defined by the data 

synthesis of needs in the Prioritization Framework 

discussed in Chapter 6. 

Throughout the recommendations that follow, the phrase 

“areas of greatest need” refers to the neighborhood 

clusters in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. 

NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTERS ASSESSED 

WITH THE GREATEST NEED 

Cluster 2 | Columbia Heights, Mt. Pleasant, Pleasant 


Cluster 7 | Shaw, Logan Circle 

Cluster 18 | Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth 

Cluster 25 | Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park 

Cluster 33 | Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning 

Heights 

Cluster 36 | Woodland/Fort Stanton, Garfield Heights, 

Knox Hill 

Cluster 39 | Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington 

Highlands



COMBINED Determining ASSESSMENT the Combined OF NEEDFacility 

Needs 






















Figure 7.1 

13 

11 

14 


4 

42 

10 

15 

12 

5 

41 

1 

6 

16 

40 

2 

18 

45 

7 

17 

8 

3 

44 

9 

LEGEND 



High Need 


Moderate Need 


Low Need 






2012/2013 and 2013/2014 

School Years 


21 

25 

19 

43 

27 

20 

39 

37 

23 

22 

28 

26 

38 

36 

46 

35 

24 

34 

32 

29 

30 

Water 

31 

33 

115

Cluster 

Number 

116 

2 

Cluster Name DCPS Schools Charter Schools Category of Highest Need 

Columbia Heights, 

Mt. Pleasant, 

Pleasant Plains, 

Park View 


18 

25 

33 

36 

39 

Brightwood 

Park, Crestwood, 

Petworth 

Union Station, 

Stanton Park, 

Kingman Park 

Capitol View, 

Marshall Heights, 

Benning Heights 

Woodland/Fort 

Stanton, Garfield 

Heights, Knox Hill 

Congress Heights, 

Bellevue, 

Washington 

Highlands 

• Bancroft Elementary School 

• Benjamin Banneker Senior High School 

• Bruce-Monroe Elementary School at 

Park View 

• Cardozo Senior High School 

• Columbia Heights Education Campus 

• Meyer Elementary School 

• Tubman Elementary School 

• Garrison Elementary School 

• Seaton Elementary School 

• Shaw Junior High School 

• Barnard Elementary School 

• Brightwood Education Campus 

• MacFarland Middle School 

• Powell Elementary School 

• Raymond Education Campus 

• Roosevelt Senior High School 

• Sharpe Health School 

• Truesdell Education Campus 

• West Education Campus 

• Capitol Hill Montessori at Logan 

• Eliot-Hine Middle School 

• J.O. Wilson Elementary School 

• Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School 

• Miner Elementary School 

• Peabody Elementary School (Capitol 

Hill Cluster) 

• Prospect Learning Center 

• School-Within-A-School at Logan 

• Stuart-Hobson Middle School (Capitol 

Hill Cluster) 

• Washington Metropolitan High School 

• C.W. Harris Elementary School 

• Davis Elementary School 

• Fletcher-Johnson Education Campus 

• Nalle Elementary School 

• Plummer Elementary School 

• Garfield Elementary School 

• Stanton Elementary School 

• Ballou Senior High School 

• Ferebee-Hope Elementary School 

• Hart Middle School 

• Hendley Elementary School 

• King Elementary School 

• M.C. Terrell/McGogney Elementary 

School 

• Patterson Elementary School 

• Simon Elementary School 

Figure 7.2: Neighborhood Clusters with the Highest Facility Need 


Columbia Heights 

• Carlos Rosario International PCS 

• Cesar Chavez PCS: Bruce Prep Campus 

• Creative Minds PCS 

• DC Bilingual PCS: Columbia 

• DC Bilingual PCS: 14th Street 

• E.L. Haynes PCS: Georgia Avenue 

• LAYC Career Academy PCS 

• Shining Stars Montessori Academy PCS 

• The Next Step: El Proximo Paso PCS 

• YouthBuild LAYC PCS 

• Center City PCS: Shaw Campus 

• Community Academy PCS: Butler 

Bilingual 

• KIPP DC: Grow, Lead, WILL 

• Bridges PCS 

• Center City PCS: Petworth Campus 

• Community Academy PCS: Amos I 

• Community Academy PCS: Amos II 

• Community Academy PCS: Online 

• E.L. Haynes PCS: Kansas Avenue 

• Hospitality Senior High PCS 

• Washington Latin PCS: Middle School 

Campus (Decatur) 

• Washington Latin PCS: Upper School 

Campus (Upshur) 


Oklahoma Ave. 

• Friendship PCS: Blow-Pierce 

Elementary & Middle 

• Options PCS: Middle and High School 

• Two Rivers PCS: Upper and Lower 

• KIPP DC: KEY, LEAP, Promise 

• Maya Angelou PCS: Evans High School 

• Maya Angelou PCS: Evans Middle 

• Maya Angelou PCS: Young Adult 

Learning Center 

• Achievement Preparatory Academy 

PCS 

• Center City PCS: Congress Heights 

Campus 

• Eagle Academy PCS: The Eagle Center 

at McGoney 

• Early Childhood Academy PCS: Walter 

Washington Campus 

• Friendship PCS: Southeast Elementary 

Academy 

• Friendship PCS: Technology 

Preparatory Academy 

• Imagine Southeast PCS 

• National Collegiate Preparatory PCS 





































to be improved

STRATEGIES TO 

ADDRESS NEEDS 

Short-Term Strategies 

The following are recommended strategies to address 

the needs outlined in this Master Facilities Plan over 

the next five years through adjustments to the Capital 

Improvement Plan (CIP). Some require relatively small 

investments for short-term gains. 

ST1: TARGET CAPITAL RESOURCES FOR AREAS OF 

GREATEST FACILITY CONDITION AND QUALITY NEED 

WITH LARGE SCHOOL-AGE POPULATIONS, BUT LOW 

ENROLLMENT. 

Areas where the most children live should receive 

priority for facility resources. In this way, public funds 

are used to benefit the greatest number of children. 

Many charters would like to draw enrollment from 

the neighborhood in which they are located. Other 

charters are facing enrollment pressure and do not 

have space to expand where they are currently located. 

Capital expenditures should be directed to clusters 

with low enrollment but large school-age populations 

to help redistribute enrollment by creating a greater 

number of facilities of high quality to serve areas of large 

populations. No longer will students have to travel great 

distances to find a school of quality. 

Rather than focus on a few neighborhoods where 

enrollment has been historically high, this redistribution 

of resources ensures that parents and students will have 

a high quality school facility to choose from in every 

neighborhood. 

ST2: PRIORITIZE FACILITY RESOURCES FOR SCHOOLS 

THAT SERVE MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADES IN AREAS OF 

GREATEST NEED. 

The greatest dip in enrollment has been during the 

middle school years for both DCPS and charter schools. 

Prioritizing facility resources for middle schools, whether 

for full modernizations, additions to provide needed 

capacity or support programming, or new construction, 

would send a clear message about the value placed by 

the city on middle school education and could contribute 

to reversing this trend. 

A focus on middle schools inspires confidence that there 

will be a school facility of quality to serve the surge of 

students currently in elementary school as they age. 

Since there are fewer stand-alone middle schools and K-8 

schools than elementary schools, it is feasible to have a 

quicker positive impact on this school type. 

The improvements to the Takoma Education Campus, 

which saw enrollment and student performance 

increases after a complete modernization, could be 

repeated. Although the “Takoma Effect” cannot be 

directly attributed to modernization, its example 

represents a worthwhile investment to better prepare 

students for high school. 

117

118 

ST3: PILOT FACILITY SOLUTIONS TO SUPPORT 

INNOVATIVE PROGRAMMING. 

Throughout both DCPS and charter schools, many 

leaders and educators are developing and executing 

innovative education programs in facilities that do not 

support the programming. 

For example, at DCPS Kramer Middle School, the school 

leadership has developed a flipped classroom model 

where students spend half of a 90-minute schedule 

block working online on a set of exercises and projects 

to build mastery and the other half in a traditional 

instruction class. But the facility is ill-equipped to 

support the agile movement between a digital learning 

arrangement and a lecture arrangement. 

To remedy this situation, a fund could be set up for 

facility improvements to support innovative education 

programming at both DCPS and charter schools. These 

small-scale renovations would then be observed and 

measured for their effectiveness and, if successful, used 

as a model for future modernizations. 

ST4: IN CLUSTERS FORECASTED TO HAVE SCHOOL-AGE 

POPULATION INCREASES, SHARE UNDERUTILIZED 

SPACE IN DCPS FACILITIES WITH CHARTER SCHOOLS, 

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, AND OTHERS THAT 

USE SPACE TO PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH ACCESS TO 

WORKFORCE TRAINING. 

Given the forecast for increases in school-age 

population, facilities that are currently underutilized may 

provide much needed capacity in the future, even within 

the five-year horizon of this plan. 

Therefore, to make the most of the facility asset, underutilized 

space could be leased to organizations that 

support the community in general or youth in particular. 

Such co-location may also enhance the student 

experience. 

ST5: DEVELOP A BEST PRACTICES AND DESIGN 

GUIDELINES DOCUMENT FOR ALL PUBLIC EDUCATION 

FACILITIES - DCPS AND CHARTER. 

Design guidelines for both DCPS and charter schools 

would establish the basic expectations for a quality public 

education facility, while allowing flexibility for specific 

programming needs of charter schools and specialized 

DCPS schools. 

Design guidelines should draw on the most effective 

design strategies and lessons learned from the DCPS 

modernization program to date, highly effective design 

strategies from charter schools, and best practices 

nationwide. 

Most buildings in the DCPS inventory and, by extension, 

many charters, were designed 40 or more years ago with 

only classroom spaces in mind. Therefore, many schools 

are not organized in ways to support the variety of space 

sizes and types required by contemporary teaching 

and learning. The design guidelines should identify the 

appropriate space needs for these programs so that 

future modernizations can properly address these needs. 

Design guidelines should also address the space needs 

for special education services as well as partnerships with 

other education program providers. School leaders have 

been creative and entrepreneurial in using underutilized 

space in school buildings for programs that benefit their 

students. However, in many of the Education Facility 

Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI) walkthroughs (see 

Chapter 4 for more details), the planning team observed 

special education and enhancement programs operating 

in formerly under-utilized spaces that were not conclusive 

to these activities.

ST6: CREATE THE SPACE AND ENVIRONMENT FOR 

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR COLLABORATION WITHIN 

EACH SCHOOL. 

DCPS has a professional learning community structure 

to support teacher collaboration and professional 

development, and many charters have similar programs. 

Research has shown that teachers are far more effective 

when they can collaborate with and learn from peers. 

To make this program even more effective, there should 

be high quality space for each professional learning 

community in every school. 

High quality space for professional collaboration among 

educators will help create a physical environment that 

attracts and retains the best teachers, and supports a 

culture of collaboration and innovation. 

Space needs should also be addressed for specialists, 

para-professionals and education partners providing 

enhancement programs. 

Professional collaboration space could also be a place for 

educators from both DCPS and charter schools, as well 

as other service providers, to meet and share knowledge 

and best practices. 

ST7: ESTABLISH A CONSISTENT AND STREAMLINED 

DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR 

FACILITIES. 

This Master Facilities Plan gathers comprehensive data 

on school facilities, including information on capacity, 

building conditions and demographic changes. Currently, 

facilities-related data is dispersed across numerous 

agencies, not updated regularly, if it is gathered at all, 

and difficult to access. As an example, the Department 

of General Services is in the process of updating school 

facilities conditions assessments for all publicly owned 

and operated schools, and consolidating this information 

into its property management database of public assets. 

119

120 

DCPS and charter schools have different ways of 

measuring capacity. The Public Charter School Board 

must establish a facilities registry, as required by law, to 

capture growth plans and facility conditions for public 

charter schools. The Office of the State Superintendent 

of Education collects enrollment data. The State Data 

Center in the DC Office of Planning develops population 

forecasts and tracks demographic changes. This data 

should be consolidated and updated on a regular basis 

so that decision-makers can use it to allocate resources 

more effectively and efficiently. 

ST8: THE MAIN ENTRANCE, LOBBY AND RECEPTION 

AREA SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN EVERY PHASE 1 

MODERNIZATION. 

Among the DCPS schools yet to be modernized, facilities 

consistently received low scores for the EFEI pattern 

called “Welcoming Entrance.” 

The entrance through which students and visitors 

pass each day sets the tone for the entire school 

environment. A front door that is transparent to 

the street communicates a degree of welcome and 

openness, compared to a set of solid doors without 

handles that raise the suspicion of danger and 

completely shut out the community. An entrance that 

celebrates student achievement and school culture 

instills pride in students and community. 

For a relatively small investment, the face of every 

school yet to be modernized could be transformed, 

ushering in a new era and welcoming students and 

visitors to engage in school activities. 

Long-Term Strategies 

Some of the recommended strategies for addressing 

the needs outlined in this Master Facilities Plan reach 

beyond the five-year horizon of this report. These 

strategies may demand longer-term planning and may 

require more interagency coordination in order to be 

implemented. However, all of the strategies are essential 

to addressing the systemic issues that have led to some of 

the most acute needs identified in this report. 

LT1: REASSESS THE PHASED MODERNIZATION 

APPROACH. 

The phased modernization approach has been 

remarkably successful in improving the quality of the 

learning environment in the majority of DCPS facilities 

within a very short period of time. However, the quality 

of the learning environment and the investment in 

lighting, finishes and furniture are often undermined 

by the condition of the building systems which are not 

addressed in the first phase of modernization.

Since no Phase 2 modernizations have been completed, 

there is an opportunity to carefully redefine select 

modernizations to include work on building systems or 

fully modernize certain facilities in clusters of greatest 

need. 

A Phase 1 modernization may be insufficient to fully 

address the needs of facilities in areas of greatest need. 

Many of these schools are forecast to have strong 

enrollment pressures and the building systems, access 

for people with disabilities and building enclosures 

should be addressed to meet the increased demand. 

LT2: ALLOW FOR A SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT APPROACH 

THAT CAN INCLUDE ADDITIONAL SITE OR FACILITY 

USES. 

Where conditions allow, encourage more co-location 

and mixed-use development of school facilities. Colocated 

uses might include other schools or other public 

institutions, such as public libraries and community 

centers. They could incorporate private institutions 

of allied interest, such as Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs 

or arts institutions. Private development, such as 

commercial space, senior residential space and marketrate 

housing, is another proven segment to have been 

successfully co-located with schools around the country 

and in the District of Columbia that can greatly reduce 

the financial burden of school development. 

A mixed-use development approach could reduce 

the capital expenditure required by the city for the 

construction of DCPS facilities and make the financing of 

charter facilities more viable. It can create opportunities 

for co-location of uses that could support students 

before and after school, enhance learning and maximize 

the use of facilities outside of the school calendar. 

Co-location of public institutions and community 

resources would also help position schools as community 

resources, even for those residents without students in 

the system. 

LT3: AS PART OF EACH SUBSEQUENT MFP, CONVENE A 

WORKING GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS TO ASSESS AND 

REFRESH THE PRINCIPLES THAT GUIDE THE PLAN. 

The landscape of education programming, facilities, 

and student needs is changing with every passing year. 

While the principles noted in this facilities plan provide 

a valuable guide for making decisions about capital 

investments and improvements, over time the guiding 

principles will need to be refreshed based on the latest 

thinking and conditions around public education in the 

District of Columbia. 

The working group was an invaluable asset in the 

formulation of this MFP. In the future, it will be 

important to continue to have a dialogue with objective 

stakeholders representing all aspects of public education 

in the District. A working group made of school leaders, 

agencies, Board of Education members, and community 

stakeholders should be convened to reassess the guiding 

principles and provide fresh guidance for subsequent 

facilities planning documents. 

121

122

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

124 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

WORKING GROUP 

The Public Education Master Facilities Plan Working Group informed and supported stakeholder groups involved in the 

development of a master facilities plan for public education in the District of Columbia. The Working Group provided 

the DC Deputy Mayor for Education (DME) with clear and sound advice on a tool to help decision makers and citizens 

of the District of Columbia allocate resources in an efficient and equitable manner to improve student outcomes. 

While the Working Group served in an advisory capacity, the DME sought specific advice from the group as to the 

criteria to apply when making strategic decisions about public education facilities. 

Working Group Chair 

Ginnie Cooper, Chief Librarian, DC Public Library 

Working Group Members 

Kamili Anderson, Ward 4 Representative, State Board of 

Education 

Martha Cutts, Head of School, Washington Latin Public 

Charter School 

Anthony deGuzman, Chief Operating Officer, DC Public 

Schools 

Kimberly Driggins, Associate Director for Citywide 

Planning, DC Office of Planning 

Chris Dunlavey, Department of General Services 

Steve Green, Director of Capital Programs and 

Development, DC Housing Authority 

Clara Hess, Director, Human Capital and Strategic 

Initiatives, Public Charter School Board 

Billy Kearney, Principal, Hart Middle School 

John McGaw, Director of Capital Improvements 

Program, Mayor’s Office of Budget and Finance, 

Executive Office of the Mayor 

Christie McKay, Director of Education, Education 

Strengthens Families Public Charter School 

Patrick Mara, Ward 1 Representative, State Board of 

Education 

David Pinder, Principal, McKinley Technical High School 

Wendy Scott, Chief Operating Officer, DC Prep Charter 

School 

Mary Shaffner, Executive Director, Washington Yu Ying 

Public Charter School 

Rikki Taylor, Principal, Takoma Education Campus 

Monica Warren-Jones, Ward 6 Representative, State 

Board of Education 

Trayon White, Ward 8 Representative, State Board of 

Education 

Stephen Zagami, Instructional Superintendent for Cluster 

VI, DC Public Schools

Working Group Alternates 

Rosalyn Hughey, Deputy Director, DC Office of Planning 

Joshua Ghaffari, Facilities Planner, Capital Planning, DC 

Office of Planning 

Claudia Lujan, Chief of Staff to the COO, DCPS 

125

126 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Vincent C. Gray, Mayor 

Jennifer Leonard, Interim Deputy Mayor for Education 

De’Shawn Wright, Former Deputy Mayor for Education 

Marc Bleyer, Capital Program Manager, Office of the 

Deputy Mayor for Education 

Scheherazade Salimi, Chief of Staff, Office of the Deputy 

Mayor for Education 

Jessica Sutter, Former Senior Advisor – School Quality, 

Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education 

CONSULTANT TEAM 

Ayers Saint Gross Architects + Planners, Strategic 

Planners and Project Direction 

Feilding Nair International, K-12 Education Expertise and 

Project Direction 

Reingold LINK, Public Engagement and Communications 

Collaborative Strategies Group, LLC, Meeting Facilitation 

and Communications 

Decision Lens, Collaborative Decision-Making 

Bolan Smart Associates, Inc., Demographic and 

Population Forecast Analsysis 

Cropper GIS, LLC, Cartography 

DC AGENCY PARTNERS 

District of Columbia Public Schools 

District of Columbia Public Charter School Board 

Office of the State Superintendent of Education 

District of Columbia Office of Planning 

District of Columbia Department of General Services 

Office of the Chief Technology Officer

APPENDIX A: 

SCHOOL LISTING

128 

2008 DCPS Facility 2012‐2013 DCPS 

Gross Square 

Enrollment 

Modernization 

Capacity 

Utilization 

Condition Index Facility Condition 

Neighborhood 

Footage (GSF) 

(SY2011‐12) 

Type 

(See Appendix G) Index** 

School Name Agency Grades Cluster Address 

Achievement Preparatory Academy PCS PCS 4‐8 39 908 Wahler Place, SE 2nd Floor 20032 27,000 300 202 67% n/a n/a n/a 

Aiton Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 31 533 48th PL., NE, Washington, DC 20019 57,100 442 269 61% None Unsatisfactory Fair 

Amidon‐Bowen Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 9 401 Eye St., SW, Washington, DC 20024 70,800 400 254 64% Phase 1 Poor TBD 

Anacostia Senior High School DCPS 9‐12 34 1601 16th St., Washington, DC 20020 207,000 1,200 784 65% Full Good TBD 

AppleTree Early Learning PCS ‐ Lincoln Park PCS PS‐PK 26 138 12th Street, NE 20019 8,975 160 60 38% n/a n/a n/a 

AppleTree Early Learning PCS ‐ Oklahoma Ave. PCS PS‐PK 25 330 21st Street, NE 20002 15,866 160 158 99% n/a n/a n/a 

AppleTree Early Learning PCS ‐Parkland PCS PS‐PK 38 2011 Savannah Street, SE 20020 7,484 160 80 50% n/a n/a n/a 

AppleTree Early Learning PCS ‐ Amidon PCS PS‐PK 9 401 I Street, SW 20024 2,200 160 41 26% n/a n/a n/a 

AppleTree Early Learning PCS ‐ Columbia Heights PCS PS‐PK 2 2750 14th Street, NW 20009 12,204 160 158 99% n/a n/a n/a 

AppleTree Early Learning PCS ‐ Douglas Knoll PCS PS‐PK 38 2017 Savannah Terrace, SE 20020 9,677 160 86 54% n/a n/a n/a 

AppleTree Early Learning PCS ‐ Riverside PCS PS‐PK 9 680 I Street, SW 20024 3,600 160 40 25% n/a n/a n/a 

Arts & Technology Academy PCS PCS PS‐5 31 5300 Blaine St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 70,000 633 602 95% n/a n/a n/a 

Ballou Senior High School DCPS 9‐12 39 3401 4th St., SE, Washington, DC 20032 271,300 1,400 1,830 131% Full Good TBD 

Bancroft Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 2 1755 Newtwon St., NW, Washington, DC 20010 79,800 563 463 82% None Unsatisfactory Fair 

Barnard Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 18 430 Decatur St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 72,500 520 482 93% Full (Pre 2008) Fair TBD 

BASIS DC PCS PCS 5‐8 8 412 8th Street, NW 20004 42,000 511 445 87% n/a n/a n/a 

Beers Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 34 3600 Alabama Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 77,500 465 386 83% None Unsatisfactory Fair 

Benjamin Banneker Senior High School DCPS 9‐12 2 800 Euclid St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 180,000 620 413 67% Future Full Unsatisfactory Fair 

Booker T. Washington PCS for the Technical Arts PCS 9‐12 3 1346 Florida Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009 35,000 368 408 111% n/a n/a n/a 

Brent Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 26 301 North Carolina Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20003 47,500 325 347 107% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Bridges PCS PCS PS‐K 18 1250 Taylor Street NW 9,830 86 86 100% n/a n/a n/a 

Brightwood Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 18 1300 Nicholson St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 86,120 550 549 100% Full Fair TBD 

Brookland DCPS 20 1150 Michigan Ave., NE 98,200 332 n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD 

Brookland Education Campus at Bunker Hill DCPS PS‐8 20 1401 Michigan Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20017 69,400 480 304 63% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Browne Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 23 850 26th St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 215,400 804 384 48% None Poor Fair 

Bruce‐Monroe Elementary School at Park View DCPS PS‐5 2 3560 Warder St., NW, Washington, DC 20010 82,200 450 459 102% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Burroughs Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 22 1820 Monroe St., NE, Washington, DC 20018 63,900 450 296 66% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Burrville Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 31 801 Division Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20019 95,000 400 368 92% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

C.W. Harris Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 33 301 53rd St., SE, Washington, DC 20019 56,000 438 224 51% None Poor Poor 

Capital City PCS PCS PK‐12 17 100 Peabody St., NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20011 168,000 950 634 67% n/a n/a n/a 

Capitol Hill Montessori at Logan DCPS PS‐5 25 215 G St., NE, Washington DC 20002 47,200 330 211 64% n/a n/a TBD 

Cardozo Senior High School DCPS 9‐12 2 1200 Clifton St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 355,400 1,100 477 43% Full Fair TBD 

Carlos Rosario International PCS PCS Ungraded 2 1100 Harvard St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 78,990 2,389 1,808 76% n/a n/a n/a 

Center City PCS: Brightwood Campus PCS PK‐8 17 6008 Georgia Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20011 37,000 238 231 97% n/a n/a n/a 

Center City PCS: Capitol Hill Campus PCS PK‐8 26 1503 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 40,000 265 222 84% n/a n/a n/a 

Center City PCS: Congress Heights Campus PCS PK‐8 39 220 Highview Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20032 27,000 261 244 93% n/a n/a n/a 

Center City PCS: Petworth Campus PCS PK‐8 18 510 Webster St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 31,000 241 232 96% n/a n/a n/a 

Center City PCS: Shaw Campus PCS PK‐8 7 711 N St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 29,000 238 237 100% n/a n/a n/a 

Center City PCS: Trinidad Campus PCS PK‐8 23 1217 West Virginia Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20002 23,000 249 215 86% n/a n/a n/a 

Cesar Chavez PCS: Bruce Prep Campus PCS 6‐9 2 770 Kenyon St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 36,059 450 320 71% n/a n/a n/a 

Cesar Chavez PCS: Capitol Hill Campus PCS 9‐12 26 709 12th St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 40,000 430 392 91% n/a n/a n/a 

Cesar Chavez PCS: Parkside Campus PCS 6‐12 30 3701 Hayes St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 66,860 1,100 674 61% n/a n/a n/a 

Cleveland Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 3 1825 8th St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 53,000 320 301 94% Full (Pre 2008) Poor TBD 

Columbia Heights Education Campus DCPS 6‐12 2 3101 16th St., NW, Washington, DC 20010 325,217 1,400 1,203 86% Full (Pre 2008) Fair TBD 

Community Academy PCS ‐ Amos I PCS PS‐5 18 1300 Allison St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 50,000 519 461 89% n/a n/a n/a 

Community Academy PCS ‐ Amos II PCS PS‐K 18 1351 Nicholson St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 55,000 285 137 48% n/a n/a n/a 

Community Academy PCS ‐ Amos III PCS PS‐8 21 1400 1st St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 140,000 900 488 54% n/a n/a n/a 

Community Academy PCS ‐ Butler Bilingual PCS PS‐5 7 5 Thomas Circle, NW, Washington, DC 20005 30,000 300 303 101% n/a n/a n/a 

*Scheduled to close per the DCPS Consolidation and Reorganization Plan 

**2008 and 2013 FCI Studies were conducted by different organizations using different methodologies.


Gross Square 

Enrollment 

Modernization 

Capacity 

Utilization 


Neighborhood 

Footage (GSF) 

(SY2011‐12) 

Type 



Community Academy PCS ‐ Online PCS PS‐8 18 1351 Nicholson St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 0 195 111 57% n/a n/a n/a 

Community Academy PCS ‐ Rand PCS PK‐5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Coolidge Senior High School DCPS PS‐8 17 6315 5th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 271,300 1,105 547 50% Future Full Unsatisfactory Fair 

Creative Minds PCS PCS PS‐2 2 3324 16th Street, NW 20010 17,808 105 105 100% n/a n/a n/a 

Davis Elementary School* DCPS PS‐5 33 4430 H St., SE. Washington, DC 20019 71,100 449 184 41% None n/a TBD 

DC Bilingual PCS ‐ 14th St PCS 3029 14th Street NW 12,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

DC Bilingual PCS ‐ Columbia PCS PK‐5 2 1420 Columbia Rd., NW, Washington, DC 20009 11,000 339 353 104% n/a n/a n/a 

DC Prep: Benning Campus PCS PS‐3 32 100 41st St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 70,090 720 332 46% n/a n/a n/a 

DC Prep: Edgewood Elementary Campus PCS PK‐3 21 707 Edgewood St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 50,000 426 410 96% n/a n/a n/a 

DC Prep: Edgewood Middle Campus PCS 4‐8 21 701 Edgewood St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 39,746 300 280 93% n/a n/a n/a 

DC Scholars PCS PS‐3 18 5601 E Capitol Street, SE 20011 19,500 200 183 92% n/a n/a n/a 

Deal Middle School DCPS 7‐8 11 3815 Fort Dr., NW, Washington, DC 20016 181,000 1,090 1,014 93% Full Good TBD 

Drew Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 31 5600 Eads St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 72,800 445 181 41% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Duke Ellington School of the Arts DCPS 9‐12 4 3500 R St., NW, Washington, DC 20007 167,500 500 517 103% Future Full Unsatisfactory TBD 

Dunbar Senior High School DCPS 9‐12 21 1301 New Jersey Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001 343,400 1,100 593 54% Future Full Unsatisfactory TBD 

E.L. Haynes PCS ‐ Georgia Avenue PCS 4‐8 2 3600 Georgia Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20010 46,000 398 394 99% n/a n/a n/a 

E.L. Haynes PCS ‐ Kansas Avenue PCS PS‐10 18 4501 Kansas Avenue, NW 20011 83,000 557 403 72% n/a n/a n/a 

Eagle Academy PCS ‐ The Eagle Center at McGoney PCS PS‐3 39 3400 Wheeler Road, SE 20032 86,000 680 450 66% n/a n/a n/a 

Eagle Academy PCS‐ New Jersey Avenue PCS PS‐1 27 1017 New Jersey Avenue, SE 20003 12,000 126 160 127% n/a n/a n/a 

Early Childhood Academy PCS ‐ Johenning Campus PCS PS‐3 29 4301 9th St. SE, Washington, DC 20032 15,600 250 135 54% n/a n/a n/a 

Early Childhood Academy PCS ‐ Walter Washington 

PCS PS‐3 39 12,000 250 248 99% n/a n/a n/a 

Campus 

Eastern Senior High School DCPS 12 26 1700 East Capitol St., NE, Washington, DC 20003 288,800 1,100 303 28% Full Good TBD 

Eaton Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 15 3301 Lowell St., NW, Washington, DC 20008 49,100 415 457 110% None Unsatisfactory Fair 

Education Strengthens Families (Esf) PCS PCS Ungraded 1 2333 Ontario Rd., NW, Washington, DC 20009 9,190 495 395 80% n/a n/a n/a 

Eliot‐Hine Middle School DCPS 7‐8 25 1830 Constitution Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20002 155,100 742 348 47% None Unsatisfactory Fair 

Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS PCS PK‐6 20 3700 Oakview Terrace, NE, Washington, DC 20010 33,000 350 350 100% n/a n/a n/a 

Emery DCPS 21 1720 1st Street NE 63,800 438 n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory TBD 

Excel Academy PCS PCS PS‐4 37 2501 M. L. King, Jr., Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 59,000 550 401 73% n/a n/a n/a 

Ferebee‐Hope Elementary School* DCPS PS‐6 39 3999 8th St., SE, Washington, DC 20032 193,800 400 239 60% Phase 1 n/a TBD 

Fletcher‐Johnson DCPS 33 4650 Benning Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20019 302,000 1,284 n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory TBD 

Francis‐Stevens Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 5 2425 N St., NW, Washington, DC 20037 95,100 410 233 57% None Unsatisfactory Good 

Friendship PCS ‐ Blow‐Pierce Elementary & Middle PCS PS‐8 25 725 19th St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 62,994 685 641 94% n/a n/a n/a 

Friendship PCS ‐ Chamberlain Elementary & Middle PCS PS‐8 26 1345 Potomac Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20002 80,660 758 765 101% n/a n/a n/a 

Friendship PCS ‐ Collegiate Academy PCS 9‐12 30 4095 Minnesota Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20019 151,558 1,058 1,110 105% n/a n/a n/a 

Friendship PCS ‐ Southeast Elementary Academy PCS PS‐5 39 645 Milwaukee Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20032 47,000 553 547 99% n/a n/a n/a 

Friendship PCS ‐ Woodridge Elementary & Middle PCS PS‐8 24 2959 Carlton Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20018 67,600 382 498 130% n/a n/a n/a 

Friendship PCS‐ Technology Preparatory Academy PCS 6‐8 39 620 Milwaukee Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20032 21,482 477 378 79% n/a n/a n/a 

Garfield Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 36 2435 Alabama Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 54,908 365 240 66% None Unsatisfactory Fair 

Garrison Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 7 1200 S St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 60,200 356 237 67% None Unsatisfactory TBD 

Green DCPS 38 1500 Mississippi Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 77,700 712 n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory TBD 

H.D. Cooke Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 1 2525 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 85,709 440 396 90% Full Good TBD 

H.D. Woodson Senior High School DCPS 9‐12 11 4650 Benning Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20019 275,000 1,000 810 81% Full Good TBD 

Hamilton (Youth Services Center)* DCPS 1‐8 23 1401 Brentwood Prkwy., NE, Washington, DC 20002 180,700 1,000 67 n/a None n/a TBD 

Hardy Middle School DCPS 6‐8 4 1819 35th St., NW, Washington, DC 20002 116,872 650 412 63% Full Fair TBD 

Hart Middle School DCPS 6‐8 39 601 Mississippi Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20032 170,000 912 530 58% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory Good 

Hearst Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 15 3950 37th St., NW, Washington, DC 20008 17,400 180 257 143% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Hendley Elementary School DCPS PK‐6 39 425 Chesapeake St., SE, Washington, DC 20032 73,200 515 341 66% None Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 


**2008 and 2013 FCI Studies were conducted by different organizations using different methodologies. 

129


Gross Square 

Enrollment 

Modernization 

Capacity 

Utilization 


Neighborhood 

Footage (GSF) 

(SY2011‐12) 

Type 



Hope Community PCS: Lamond Campus PCS PK‐8 19 6200 Kansas Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20017 76,000 399 407 102% n/a n/a n/a 

Hope Community PCS: Tolson Campus PCS PK‐8 21 2917 8th St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 0 430 425 99% n/a n/a n/a 

Hospitality Senior High PCS PCS 9‐12 18 4301 13th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 30,000 202 196 97% n/a n/a n/a 

Houston Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 31 1100 50th Pl., NE, Washington, DC 20019 59,900 398 223 56% None Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 

Howard Road Academy Middle PCS ‐ MLK Ave PCS 7‐8 37 2450 M. L. King Jr. Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 4,500 120 129 108% n/a n/a n/a 

Howard Road Academy PCS ‐ Howard Road PCS K‐6 37 701 Howard Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20020 37,000 600 522 87% n/a n/a n/a 

Howard Road Academy PCS ‐ Penn Ave PCS PK‐3 34 3000 Pennsylvania Ave,. SE, Washington, DC 20020 5,600 163 154 94% n/a n/a n/a 

Howard University Middle School PCS PCS 6‐8 3 405 Howard Pl., NW, Washington, DC, 20059 39,600 360 307 85% n/a n/a n/a 

Hyde‐Addison Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 4 3219 O St., NW, Washington, DC 20007 41,329 292 308 105% Full Fair Fair 

IDEA‐ Integrated Design and Electronic Academy PCS PCS 7‐12 31 1027 45th St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 100,000 302 359 119% n/a n/a n/a 

Ideal Academy PCS PCS PK‐8 19 6130 North Capitol St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 32,000 281 272 97% n/a n/a n/a 

Imagine Southeast PCS PCS PK‐6 39 3100 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave., SE, Washington, DC 50,000 608 553 91% n/a n/a n/a 

Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS PCS PK‐4 20 1328 Florida Avenue, NW 20009 0 550 142 26% n/a n/a n/a 

J.O. Wilson Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 25 660 K St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 98,900 400 382 96% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Janney Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 11 4130 Albermarle St., NW, Washington, DC 20016 84,400 570 548 96% Full Good TBD 

Jefferson Middle School DCPS 6‐8 9 801 7th St., NW, Washington, DC 20024 109,000 570 263 46% None Unsatisfactory Fair 

John Hayden Johnson Middle School DCPS 6‐8 38 1400 Bruce Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20020 182,500 1,015 252 25% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Kelly Miller Middle School DCPS 6‐8 31 301 49th St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 115,000 600 328 55% Full Poor TBD 

Kenilworth Elementary School* DCPS PS‐5 29 1300 44th St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 57,100 402 178 44% None n/a TBD 

Ketcham Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 28 1919 15th St., SE, Washington, DC 20020 88,300 465 256 55% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Key Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 13 5001 Dana Pl., NW, Washington, DC 20016 50,000 320 386 121% Full (Pre 2008) Fair TBD 

Kimball Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 32 3375 Minnesota Ave., SE, Washington, DC 83,400 398 313 79% None Unsatisfactory Poor 

King Elementary School DCPS PS‐6 39 3200 6th St., SE, Washington, DC 20032 65,500 517 345 67% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

KIPP DC: AIM, College Prep, Discover, Heights PCS PS‐12 37 2600 DOUGLAS ROAD SE 137,000 1,500 1,069 71% n/a n/a n/a 

KIPP DC: Grow, Lead, WILL PCS PS‐8 7 421 P Street, NW, Washington DC 100,000 1,000 531 53% n/a n/a n/a 

KIPP DC: KEY, LEAP, Promise PCS PS‐8 33 4801 Benning Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20019 86,000 1,000 1,032 103% n/a n/a n/a 

Kramer Middle School DCPS 6‐8 34 1700 Q St., SE, Washington, DC 20020 154,000 550 277 50% None Unsatisfactory Fair 

Lafayette Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 10 5701 Broad Branch Rd., NW, Washington, DC 20015 113,600 516 707 137% None Unsatisfactory Poor 

Langdon Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 22 1900 Evarts St., NE, Washington, DC 20018 101,400 500 404 81% None Unsatisfactory Poor 

Langley Educational Campus DCPS PS‐8 21 101 T Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 110,100 530 375 71% Phase 1 n/a Poor 

LaSalle‐Backus Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 19 501 Riggs Rd., NE, Washington, DC 20011 63,000 400 290 73% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS (LAMB) ‐ 

PCS PS‐PK 30 1600 Taylor St. NE 8,653 200 184 92% n/a n/a n/a 

Michigan Park Campus 

Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS (LAMB) ‐ 

PCS PS‐5 17 1375 Missouri Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20011 21,755 121 79 65% n/a n/a n/a 

Missouri Ave 

LAYC Career Academy PCS PCS Ungraded 2 3047 15th Street, NW 20009 15,500 125 121 97% n/a n/a n/a 

130 

Leckie Elementary School DCPS PS‐6 44 4201 M. L. King Jr. Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20032 65,000 400 361 90% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Ludlow‐Taylor Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 25 659 G St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 66,900 412 258 63% None Unsatisfactory Fair 

Luke C. Moore Academy Senior High School DCPS 9‐12 22 1001 Monroe St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 65,528 350 293 84% n/a n/a TBD 

M.C. Terrell/McGogney Elementary School* DCPS PS‐6 39 3301 Wheeler Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20032 112,000 400 211 53% None n/a Good 

MacFarland Middle School* DCPS 5‐8 18 4400 Iowa Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20011 110,000 610 200 33% None n/a TBD 

Malcolm X Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 38 1351 Alabama Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20032 110,800 520 261 50% None Unsatisfactory Good 

Mamie D. Lee School* DCPS PK‐12 19 100 Gallatin St., NE, Washington, DC 20011 45,800 300 109 36% None n/a Poor 

Mann Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 13 4430 Newark St., NW, Washington, DC 20016 21,903 270 290 107% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Marie Reed Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 1 2200 Champlain St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 162,700 470 357 76% None Unsatisfactory Fair 

Marshall Elementary School* DCPS PS‐5 24 3100 Fort Lincoln Dr., NE, Washington, DC 20018 103,800 480 161 34% None n/a Poor 

Mary McLeod Bethune Day Academy PCS PCS PS‐8 22 1404 Jackson St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 24,243 368 327 89% n/a n/a n/a 

Maury Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 25 1250 Constitution Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20002 46,800 325 292 90% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Maya Angelou PCS ‐ Evans Middle PCS 6‐8 33 5600 East Capitol St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 37,333 700 210 30% n/a n/a n/a 




Gross Square 

Enrollment 

Modernization 

Capacity 

Utilization 


Neighborhood 

Footage (GSF) 

(SY2011‐12) 

Type 



Maya Angelou PCS: Evans High School PCS 9‐12 33 5600 East Capitol St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 37,333 200 296 148% n/a n/a n/a 

Maya Angelou PCS‐Young Adult Learning Center PCS Ungraded 33 5600 East Capitol St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 37,333 82 82 100% n/a n/a n/a 

McKinley Technology Senior High School DCPS 9‐12 21 151 T St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 282,000 800 670 84% Full (Pre 2008) Fair TBD 

Meridian PCS PCS PK‐8 3 2120 13th Ave., NW, Washington, DC 61,900 622 531 85% n/a n/a n/a 

Meyer DCPS 2 2501 11th Street, NW 62,200 736 n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD 

Miner Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 25 601 15th St., NE, Washington, DC, 20002 76,900 550 469 85% Full (Pre 2008) Fair TBD 

Moten Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 37 2330 Pomeroy Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20020 99,700 480 315 66% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Mundo Verde PCS PCS PS‐1 6 3220 16th St. NW 22,330 270 122 45% n/a n/a n/a 

Murch Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 12 4810 36th St., NW, Washington, DC 20008 47,700 488 556 114% None Unsatisfactory Good 

Nalle Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 33 219 50th St., SE, Washington, DC 20019 83,900 400 327 82% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

National Collegiate Preparatory PCS PCS 9‐11 39 908 Wahler Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20032 27,000 309 203 66% n/a n/a n/a 

Noyes Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 22 2725 10th St., NE, Washington, DC 20018 59,400 360 352 98% Full (Pre 2008) Fair TBD 

Options PCS ‐ Middle and High School PCS 7‐12 25 1375 E St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 61,238 700 359 51% n/a n/a n/a 

Orr Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 34 2200 Minnesota Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 75,900 337 308 91% None Unsatisfactory Poor 

Oyster‐Adams Bilingual School (Adams) (Upper) DCPS PS‐3 15 2801 Calvert St., NW, Washington, DC 20008 47,984 350 355 101% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory Fair 

Oyster‐Adams Bilingual School (Oyster) (Lower) DCPS 4‐8 1 2020 19th St., NW, Washington, DC 20008 59,400 324 321 99% None Poor TBD 

Patterson Elementary School DCPS PS‐6 39 4399 South Capitol Terrace, SW, Washington, DC 20032 78,300 370 320 86% Full (Pre 2008) Fair TBD 

Paul PCS PCS 6‐9 17 5800 8th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 128,351 557 592 106% n/a n/a n/a 

Payne Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 26 305 15th St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 83,800 417 236 57% None Unsatisfactory Poor 

Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster) DCPS PS‐K 25 425 C St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 37,800 228 234 103% None Unsatisfactory Fair 

Perry St. Prep PCS (Upper and Lower) PCS PK‐12 22 1800 Perry St. NE 194,300 1,050 936 89% n/a n/a n/a 

Phelps Architecture, Construction, and Engineering Senior 

DCPS 9‐11 23 704 26th St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 180,000 650 329 51% Full Fair TBD 

High School 

Plummer Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 33 4601 Texas Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20019 69,400 448 220 49% None Unsatisfactory Poor 

Potomac Lighthouse PCS PCS PK‐5 20 4401 8th St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 21,000 400 328 82% n/a n/a n/a 

Powell Elementary School DCPS PS‐4 18 1350 Upshur St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 38,500 300 310 103% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Prospect Learning Center* DCPS PS‐8 25 920 F St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 59,200 350 100 29% None n/a Fair 

Randle Highlands Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 34 1650 30th St., SE, Washington, DC 20020 75,500 450 384 85% Full (Pre 2008) Fair TBD 

Raymond Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 18 915 Spring Rd., NW, Washington, DC 20010 73,600 465 442 95% None Unsatisfactory Fair 

Richard Wright PCS PCS 8‐9 32 100 41st Street, NE, Washington 28,000 202 125 62% n/a n/a n/a 

River Terrace Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 32 420 34th St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 62,800 281 n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory TBD 

Ronald H. Brown Middle School* DCPS 6‐8 31 4800 Meade St., NE, Washington, DC 20019 156,000 892 230 26% None n/a TBD 

Roosevelt Senior High School DCPS 9‐12 18 4301 13th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 331,900 1,059 994 94% Full Good Fair 

Roots PCS PCS PS‐8 17 15 Kennedy St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 19,687 70 120 171% n/a n/a n/a 

Ross Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 6 1730 R St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 22,400 150 157 105% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Savoy Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 37 2400 Shannon Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20020 99,975 425 344 81% Full Good Fair 

School for Educational Evolution and Development (SEED) 

PCS 6‐12 32 4300 C St., SE, Washington, DC 20019 163,000 340 340 100% n/a n/a n/a 

PCS 

School Without Walls Senior High School DCPS 9‐12 5 2130 G St., NW, Washington, DC 20037 74,000 440 527 120% Full Good TBD 

School‐Within‐A‐School at Logan Annex DCPS PS‐1 25 215 G St., NE, Washington DC 20002 7,760 n/a 84 n/a n/a n/a TBD 

Seaton Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 7 1503 10th St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 65,000 325 265 82% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Septima Clark PCS PCS PS‐5 37 2501 M. L. King, Jr., Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 28,000 250 227 91% n/a n/a n/a 

Shaed Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 21 301 Douglas St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 67,200 352 n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory TBD 

Sharpe Health School* DCPS PK‐12 18 4300 13th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 80,500 400 89 22% None n/a Fair 

Shaw Junior High School DCPS 7 925 Rhode Island Ave, NW 230,400 1,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD 

Shaw Middle School at Garnet‐Patterson* DCPS 6‐8 3 2001 10th St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 82,700 480 154 32% None n/a Poor 

Shepherd Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 16 7800 14th St., NW, Washington, DC 20012 79,700 342 331 97% None Unsatisfactory Poor 

Shining Stars Montessori Academy PCS PCS PS‐PK 2 1328 Florida Av. NW 7,554 120 53 44% n/a n/a n/a 

Simon Elementary School DCPS PS‐6 39 401 Mississippi Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20032 66,200 325 252 78% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 


**2008 and 2013 FCI Studies were conducted by different organizations using different methodologies. 

131


Gross Square 

Enrollment 

Modernization 

Capacity 

Utilization 


Neighborhood 

Footage (GSF) 

(SY2011‐12) 

Type 



Smothers Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 30 4400 Brooks St., NW, Washington, DC 20019 43,000 344 242 70% None Poor Fair 

Sousa Middle School DCPS 6‐8 32 3650 Ely Pl., SE, Washington, DC 20019 132,000 636 348 55% Full Fair TBD 

Spingarn Senior High School* DCPS 9‐12 23 2500 Benning Rd., NE, Washington, DC 20002 225,000 910 612 67% Future Full n/a TBD 

St. Coletta Special Education PCS PCS PK‐12 26 1901 Independence Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20003 99,540 287 234 82% n/a n/a n/a 

Stanton Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 36 2701 Naylor Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20020 83,792 500 355 71% Full Unsatisfactory TBD 

Stoddert Elementary School DCPS PK‐5 14 4001 Calvert St., NW, Washington, DC 20007 64,750 320 347 108% Full Good TBD 

Stuart‐Hobson Middle School (Capitol Hill Cluster) DCPS 5‐8 25 410 E St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 99,325 410 403 98% None Unsatisfactory TBD 

Takoma Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 17 7010 Piney Branch Rd., NW, Washington, DC 20012 104,294 450 306 68% Future Full Poor TBD 

The Next Step ‐ El Proximo Paso PCS PCS 9‐12 2 3047 15th Street, NW 20009 15,500 200 158 79% n/a n/a n/a 

Thomas Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 30 650 Anacostia Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20019 87,600 400 235 59% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Thomson Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 8 1200 L St., NW, Washington, DC 20005 74,992 320 327 102% Full (Pre 2008) Fair TBD 

Thurgood Marshall Academy PCS PCS 9‐12 37 2427 M. L. King Jr. Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 52,000 400 390 98% n/a n/a n/a 

Tree of Life Community PCS PCS PK‐3 22 2315 18th Pl., NE, Washington, DC 20018 28,076 400 301 75% n/a n/a n/a 

Truesdell Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 18 800 Ingraham St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 69,600 450 423 94% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Tubman Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 2 3101 13th St., NW, Washington, DC 20010 66,600 500 489 98% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Turner Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 38 1500 Mississippi Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20020 77,500 600 305 51% Full Good TBD 

Two Rivers PCS ‐ Upper and Lower PCS PS ‐8 25 1234 4th St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 58,000 350 451 129% n/a n/a n/a 

Tyler Elementary School DCPS PS‐5 26 1001 G St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 69,600 500 402 80% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Van Ness DCPS 27 1150 5th Street, SE 49,400 215 n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD 

Walker Jones Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 8 1125 New Jersey Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001 104,200 700 418 60% Full Good TBD 

132 

Washington Latin PCS: Middle School Campus (Decatur) PCS 5‐8 18 4115 16th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 13,658 325 349 107% n/a n/a n/a 

Washington Latin PCS: Upper School Campus (Upshur) PCS 9‐12 18 4715 16th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 13,730 250 225 90% n/a n/a n/a 

Washington Math, Science & Technology PCS (WMST) PCS 9‐12 23 1920 Bladensburg Rd., NE, Washington, DC 20002 49,000 368 349 95% n/a n/a n/a 

Washington Metropolitan High School DCPS 9‐12 25 300 Bryant St., NW, Washington, DC 20002 49,500 350 253 72% n/a n/a TBD 

Washington Yu Ying PCS PCS PK‐5 20 220 Taylor St., NE, Washington, DC 40,000 500 367 73% n/a n/a n/a 

Watkins Elementary School (Capitol Hill Cluster) DCPS PS‐4 26 420 12th St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 69,300 587 521 89% None Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 

West Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 18 1338 Farragut St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 69,600 278 244 88% None Unsatisfactory Good 

Wheatley Education Campus DCPS PS‐8 23 1299 Neal St., NE, Washington, DC 20002 86,375 500 475 95% Full Good TBD 

Whittier Education Campus DCPS PK‐8 17 6201 5th St., NW, Washington, DC 20011 66,600 520 346 67% Phase 1 Unsatisfactory TBD 

Wilkinson DCPS 28 2330 Pomeroy Rd., SE, Washington, DC 20020 144,900 508 n/a n/a n/a Unsatisfactory TBD 

William E. Doar Junior PCS: NE Campus PCS PS‐8 21 705 Edgewood St., NE, Washington, DC 20017 45,000 560 426 76% n/a n/a n/a 

Winston Education Campus* DCPS PK‐8 35 3100 Erie St., SE, Washington, DC 20020 137,700 550 302 55% None n/a TBD 

Woodrow Wilson Senior High School* DCPS 9‐12 11 4340 Connecticut Ave., NW, Building 52, Washington, DC 20016 376,448 1,600 1,633 102% Full Good TBD 

YouthBuild LAYC PCS PCS Ungraded 2 3014 14th Street, NW 20009 0 121 105 87% n/a n/a n/a 



133

www.fieldingnair.com 

202.684.6425 

dc@asg-architects.com 

www.asg-architects.com 

202.628.1033

DISTRICT COLUMBIA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?