DISTRICT COLUMBIA

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2:
2013 PUBLIC EDUCATION MASTER FACILI
Page 3:
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER FIVE: FAC
Page 6:
2 HIGH QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL CH
Page 9 and 10:
ASSESSMENT OF NEED ASSESSMENT OF NE
Page 11 and 12:
Cluster Number 2 Cluster Name DCPS
Page 13:
LONG-TERM STRATEGIES Some of the re
Page 16 and 17:
12 BACKGROUND As part of the reform
Page 18 and 19:
KEY MAP DCPS & CHARTER SCHOOL DCPS
Page 20 and 21:
16 LEARNING FROM RESEARCH AND BEST
Page 22 and 23:
18 slightly different approach, all
Page 24:
20 PROJECT COMMUNICATION AND OUTREA
Page 27 and 28:
GUIDING PRINCIPLES “What matters
Page 29 and 30:
RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS STUDIES 20
Page 31 and 32:
KEY MAP DCPS & CHARTER SCHOOL DCPS
Page 33 and 34:
FACILITY CONDITION The information
Page 35 and 36:
CHAPTER 3 Enrollment, Capacity and
Page 37 and 38:
CAPACITY BY CLUSTER CAPACITY BY CLU
Page 39 and 40:
GSF GSF per per Enrolled Student v.
Page 41 and 42:
Comparison of Enrollment between DC
Page 43 and 44: ENROLLMENT BY CLUSTER ENROLLMENT BY
Page 45 and 46: GSF Utilization FINDINGS ENROLLMENT
Page 47 and 48: OPPORTUNITIES Meetings with the wor
Page 51 and 52: CHAPTER 4 Population and Enrollment
Page 53 and 54: POPULATION CHANGE BY CLUSTER DEMOGR
Page 55 and 56: FORECAST RANGES Figures 4.6 - 4.7 s
Page 57 and 58: POPULATION FORECAST POPULATION FORE
Page 59 and 60: Population Forecast by DC Office of
Page 62 and 63: 58 PREDICTED ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT
Page 64 and 65: 60 POPULATION FORECAST PROJECTED UN
Page 66 and 67: 62 SNAPSHOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER
Page 68 and 69: 64 FACILITY QUALITY AND CONDITION S
Page 70 and 71: 66 In general, this index is a rela
Page 72 and 73: 68 and democratically decide who ge
Page 74 and 75: 70 Figure 5.7: Cave spaces for quie
Page 76 and 77: Welcoming Entry. m left). elcoming
Page 78 and 79: a ws how the he overall ). r cafés
Page 80 and 81: 76 Figure 5.19: Students dig in the
Page 82: 78 FINDINGS These findings refer to
Page 85 and 86: FACILITY QUALITY QUALITY FACILITY Q
Page 87 and 88: EQUITY EQUITY 1998-2018 DCPS AVERAG
Page 89 and 90: TRAVEL DISTANCE TRAVEL DISTANCE AVE
Page 91 and 92: EFEI Score 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25%
Page 93: Persistent Areas of Need Figure 5.3
Page 97 and 98: CHAPTER 6 Prioritization Framework
Page 100 and 101: 96 CURRENT FIT NEED ASSESSMENT How
Page 102 and 103: 98 ASSESSMENT OF NEED ASSESSMENT OF
Page 104 and 105: 100 2017 PROJECTED FIT AND ITS RELA
Page 106 and 107: 102 1998-2012 DCPS MODERNIZATION EQ
Page 108 and 109: 104 ASSESSMENT OF NEED ASSESSMENT O
Page 110 and 111: 106 2017 PROJECTED NO. OF SCHOOL- A
Page 112 and 113: 108 FACILITY CONDITION AND QUALITY
Page 114 and 115: 110 Facility Needs Measures and Wei
Page 117 and 118: CHAPTER 7 Recommendations
Page 119 and 120: ASSESSMENT OF NEED ASSESSMENT OF NE
Page 121 and 122: STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS NEEDS Short-T
Page 123 and 124: ST6: CREATE THE SPACE AND ENVIRONME
Page 125 and 126: Since no Phase 2 modernizations hav
Page 127 and 128: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Page 129 and 130: Working Group Alternates Rosalyn Hu
Page 131 and 132: APPENDIX A: SCHOOL LISTING
Page 133 and 134: 2008 DCPS Facility 2012‐2013 DCPS
Page 135 and 136: 2008 DCPS Facility 2012‐2013 DCPS
Page 137 and 138: 133
show all

DISTRICT COLUMBIA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?