PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION • PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLSwww.pgcps.org

Prince George's County Boundary Review

Expansion of New School Options & School Consolidation Recommendations

January 22, 2009

2PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION • PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLSwww.pgcps.org 2

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Verjeana M. Jacobs, Esq., ChairRon L. Watson, Jr., Ph.D.,Vice Chair

Donna Hathaway BeckPat J. Fletcher

Heather IliffRosalind A. JohnsonR. Owen Johnson, Jr.

Linda Thornton ThomasAmber P. Waller

Edward Burroughs, III, Student Member William Hite, Jr. Interim Superintendent of Schools

3

Presentation Objectives

• Share recommendations for expanding offerings • Increasing seats in Enrichment & Special Program schools• Creating new Neighborhood Prek – 8 Academies• Using consolidated facilities to house charter / contract

schools• Consolidations, Dedications & Conversions

• Review the parameters that guide the proposal• Share recommendations for school consolidations• Share recommendations for Dedicated and Converted Prek-8

schools• Costs implications

• Staffing• Provisioning• Transportation

• Notification Process and Strategies• Schedule

4

Since Initial Replication Proposal in June

• Global Financial Crisis hits, with reverberations in County & District Revenues

• Zone Reorganization, places ESP & Charter Schools in separate Support Zone (Opportunity Zone)

• County-wide Boundary Review Proposal which shifts which schools may be available for program offerings

• New Offerings On Deck for 2009• Redesigned of Benjamin Foulois Campus into a Creative &

performing Arts Schools serving South County. School will Open in 2009 and will have an SRC of apprx. 500 students.

• Judy Hoyer has expanded Montessori Offerings from just Neighborhood Prek students to become the third ESP Montessori school serving Prek – 6th grade.

• Board Approved Sojourner Truth Public Charter School to serve Middle grades 5 -8 in a Media-based academic program.

5

Expansion Program Recommendations

• Develop more Enrichment & Specialty Program (ESP) Schools of Choice• Provide the County’s First Chinese Immersion School• Provide 2 Spanish Immersion ESP Schools and place

the new locations strategically in order to address past access challenges and leverage available facilities

• Increase Access to Successful Enrichment & Specialty Program (ESP) Schools• Separate Goddard and Hanson Complexes increasing

seats available and better leveraging demand.• Make Strategic Use of Schools that have been

consolidated.• Use as swing-space, • Charter/contract school options

6

Recommendation: Develop More ESP Program Schools

• Where feasible, replicate successful Enrichment & Specialty Program (ESP) schools of Choice for the following options:• Provide the County’s First Chinese Immersion

School• Matthew Henson was initially targeted for this

option because of centrality of locale• Develop 2 Spanish Immersion programs in the

French Immersion program model.

7

Recommendation: Increase capacity & Improve offerings by Separating French Immersion & Montessori Schools

• Investigate K-12 International Language Academy Option that integrates IB and places existing French Immersion Schools into existing High Schools where there is appropriate space and facilities.• New Small Schools (or Small Learning Communities)

serving 300 - 400 students in the high school years, the majority of whom would matriculate from the French Immersion schools

• Would offer program continuity through 12th grade• Would provide ability to expand availability in all 4

schools without creation of New school.• Would make excellent use of available space in the

High Schools.• Would minimize the potential increases in

transportation costs.

8

Recommendation: Implement Neighborhood Prek – 8 Academies At Scale

• Combine Researched-based advantages of K-8 model• More instructional coherence vertically• Smaller grade levels lead to increased personalization.

• Better social supports and wrap-around services.• More ‘family’ atmosphere

• Elimination of grade level transition• Increased opportunities for academic acceleration

• With the proven successful strategies at our current ESP schools of choice• High expectations via more rigorous course of study.• College-focused academic offerings like Instruction in

Geometry and Foreign Language• To offer neighborhood students the same access to this

advantageous design as provided to families in ESP schools.

9

Recommendation: Make Strategic Use of Schools that Will have been Consolidated

• Consider using schools for Swing Space which can save millions in construction costs and use of temporary classrooms.

• Consider Contract & Charter School Placement in Consolidated Locales • 3 of 4 existing charters have requested consideration for

placement in district facilities.• Charters currently lease space at a total cost of 2.2

million dollars annually • Significant opportunity for increase quality of service at reduced

cost to County. • Current locations limit programs’ ability of schools to

grow to full enrollments.• All 4 current charters are eventually to be K – 8 schools

and none are in locations large enough. • Charter schools in Baltimore currently occupy and pay

for district facilities.

10

Reviewing Potential Options for Schools

• All proposals for new uses of the school facilities will be vetted to ensure:• Academic offerings align with district goals and

standards.• Costs associated with implementing the programs

are reasonable.• Community interest in the program is high and

there is a high amount of local advocacy.• Communities where the programs are placed have

a demonstrated need for the options provided.

11

Parameters Prioritized for the Review

1. Boundary Efficiency2. Neighborhood Schools3. Minimize Transportation Costs4. Facility Condition (3DI)

5. Program Expansion6. Prek – 8 7. School Academic Performance8. Fiscal Sustainability

9. Eliminate Temporary Classrooms10. Provide Space for Universal Pre-k11. Place 6th Grade in Middle Schools

1stTi

er2n

dTi

er3r

dTi

er

12

Primary Drivers for the Consolidation Recommendations

• In Every Case:• Excess capacity in geographic proximity to the schools

• This excess would remain virtually unchanged in the next 7 years according to projections.

• In Most Cases:• Under-utilization of the school itself

• For the last few years and on into the next several, projections at the schools indicate chronic under-utilization.

• In Some Cases:• The school has a pattern of low academic achievement

• The School is either in School Improvement or Restructuring Implementation.

• In a few Cases:• The school rates High on the Facilities Condition Index

• The School scores about 70 or higher indicating that the costs to maintain and renovate the facility is prohibitive.

13

Consolidation Recommendations

• Definition of consolidation: Attendance areas of existing schools will be incorporated into a nearby school or schools with available capacity, emptying the targeted school facility.

• The 12 schools included on subsequent slides are recommended for consolidation. The schools currently housed in these facilities will cease operations at the end of the school year. The next several slides identifies the rationale, fiscal implications and future possibilities for each school. Where specific options have been discussed, these are also noted.

14

Proposed School Consolidations

SchoolBerkshire ElementaryConcord ElementaryDistrict Heights ElementaryG. G. Shugart MiddleJohn Carroll ElementaryJohn E. Howard ElementaryJudge Sylvania Woods ElementaryMatthew Henson Elementary

Morningside ElementaryOakcrest Elementary

Middleton Valley Elementary

Owens Road Elementary

These schools would cease operating after the current school year.

15

Potential Program Expansion Offerings by SchoolSchool Program Expansion OptionsBerkshire Use questionable because of facility

conditionConcord ESP, Charter, Contract, Swing SpaceDistrict Heights ESP, Charter, Contract, Swing SpaceG. G. Shugart Middle ESP, Charter, Contract, Swing SpaceJudge S. Woods ESP, Charter, Contract, Swing SpaceJohn E. Howard ESP, Charter, Contract, Swing SpaceJohn Carroll ESP, Charter, Contract, Swing SpaceMathew Henson Use questionable because of facility

conditionMiddleton Valley No Use because of facility conditionMorningside No Use because of facility conditionOakcrest ESP, Charter, Contract, Swing SpaceOwens Road ESP, Charter, Contract, Swing Space

16

Dedication & Conversion Recommendations

• Definition of Dedication: Attendance areas of an existing school will be incorporated into a nearby school or schools with available capacity, creating a school for a dedicated program to occupy and enroll students via choice and lottery processes..

• Definition of Conversion: Schools with change the grade level of students served, in this case, becoming prek – 8th grade schools serving the neighborhood. Attendance areas will be modified accordingly.

• The next several slides identifies the rationale, fiscal implications and future program possibilities for each school proposed for dedication or conversion.

17

Dedication & Conversion Summary

School ProposalAndrew Jackson Middle School Consolidated & Reopened

as Prek – 8 Benjamin Foulois Elementary School Dedicated as a K-8 Creative

& Performing Arts School of Choice

Bradbury Heights Elementary School Converted into a Prek – 8

Henry Ferguson / E. Burroughs Combined into a single Prek– 8

Samuel Massie Elementary School Converted into a Prek – 8

William Hall Elementary School Converted into a Prek – 8

18

Leveraging this Opportunity to Continue Reforms

• Providing Prek – 8 Offerings to families in the area.• Draws down populations from struggling

middle schools• Eliminates one of two structured transitions

for the impacted students• Replicates successful and most popular

program of choice• Utilizing grade level configuration changes to

implement school restructuring where needed.• Andrew Jackson & Benjamin Foulois

19

12 Schools Recommended for Consolidation, 1 for Dedication, and 5 for Conversion into 4

Prek – 8

• Consolidations:• Berkshire, Concord, District Heights, G. G. Shugart,

John Carroll, John Edgar Howard, Judge Sylvania Woods, Matthew Henson, Middleton Valley, Morningside, Oakcrest & Owens Road

• Dedications:• Benjamin Foulois will become a dedicated Replication

of Creative & Performing Arts K-8 Program of choice at Thomas Pullen.

• Conversions: The following 6 schools will transition to Prek – 8, neighborhood schools:• Andrew Jackson, Bradbury Heights, Samuel Massie,

William Hall, and H. Ferguson & E. Burroughs will become one Prek – 8 school.

20

Elementary Capacity Charts Compared

Current Proposed

21

Middle School Capacity Charts Compared

Current Proposed

22

Program Relocations: Special Education, Talented & Gifted (TAG)

• As a part of the Consolidations and grade-level configuration changes, the following programs and locations will also be affected in the manner cited.

School Program Relocation OptionBenjamin Foulois Special Education (CSEP) Francis S. Key

Judge Sylvania Woods

Special Education (CSEP) Robert Gray

Skyline Special Education (Autism)

Doswell Brooks

Skyline Special Education (Hearing)

Thomas Claggett

Oakcrest Talented & Gifted (TAG) Capitol Heights

GlenardenWoods

Talented & Gifted (TAG) Robert Gray

Ferguson/E.E Burroughs

Talented & Gifted (TAG) Tag Students will be served in their neighborhood school

23

Comparison Data for Areas 7, 4, 3, &1

Element Current ProposedActive Elementary Schools 59 43

Active K-8 Schools 3 8Active Middle Schools 11 9

Active ESP Schools of Choice 3 4

Seats Available In Elementary Schools Appr. 7500 Appr. 3300

Seats Available In Middle Schools Appr. 2400 Appr. 700

Seats Available (All Schools) Appr. 10,000 Appr. 4100

24

Summation of Capacity Issues

• Proposed plan: • Accomplishes the majority of schools enrolled near the

target band (87% - 93%)• Eliminates the condition where schools are chronically

under-enrolled (less than 60% of capacity).• Eliminates the condition where schools are significantly

over-enrolled (greater than 110% of capacity)• Allows for significant growth should such occur at

Elementary and Middle grade levels.• Though current projections do not show significant

need in this region of the county.• Provides opportunity for expansion of programs of

choice, • Expands offerings of neighborhood Prek – 8 Academies,

and• Accomplishes considerable cost savings over the long

term.

25

Financial Data Descriptive Detail

• Staffing level is based on 11/18/08 Vacancy Reports• Salaries are averages and includes benefits• Assistant Principals were not reduced in the smallest

schools as that had already been proposed in the current budget

• Exclusions were made for all of Special Education, Title I, Grant and Headstart, and Means positions. • The exception is that within the classroom teacher category,

all classroom teachers were included regardless of funding source

• Paraprofessionals were not reduced in Morningside, Oakcrest, Owens Road and John Carroll because the reduction was taken in the Prior Year reductions. (44 FTE)

• Transfers denote those positions that will follow the students

• Parent Liaisons were not reduced here as that had already been proposed in the current budget.

26

Staffing Position Reductions in the following categories in each School

Support staffPrincipalsAssistant Principals*Reading SpecialistGuidance CounselorMedia SpecialistSecretaryProgram Coordinator* CustodiansBuilding SupervisorFood Services

Instructional Staff

Classroom Teachers (1/7)

Paraprofessionals

Resource Teachers

Before & After Care

27

Support Staffing Cost Savings Via: Consolidations

+ Reductions in APs based on school size were already included in budget for some schools.* Program Coordinator category Includes Parent Liaisons and ESP Coordinators. Parent

Liaison reductions have also already been included in the budget.

Support staffFY 2009 Staffing Reductions Transfer Total

Principal 12.00 (12.00) 0.00 ($1,442,654)Assistant Principal 13.00 (10.00) + 3.00 ($1,074,492)Reading Specialist 12.00 (11.00) 1.00 ($898,940)Guidance Counselor 13.00 (13.00) 0.00 ($1,108,457)Media Specialist 9.00 (9.00) 0.00 ($722,815)Secretary 27.50 (27.50) 0.00 ($1,517,137)Program Coordinator* 11.50 (0.50) 11.00 ($24,841)Custodians 31.50 (25.50) 6.00 ($921,363)Building Supervisor 13.00 (13.00) 0.00 ($782,629)Food Services 43.35 (43.35) 0.00 ($1,207,661)Total Support staff 185.85 (164.85) 21.00 ($9,700,990)

28

Instructional Staffing Cost Savings Via: Consolidations

Instructional StaffFY 2009 Staffing Reductions Transfer Total

Classroom Teachers 253.50 (36.21) 217.29 ($2,428,124)Paraprofessionals 69.00 (26.00) 43.00 ($926,023)Resource Teachers 29.50 (1.00) 28.50 ($67,408)

Before & After Care 6.66 (6.66) 0.00 ($243,140)Total Instructional Staff 358.66 (69.87) 288.79 ($3,664,696)

Summary of Staffing ReductionsTotal Support staff 185.85 (164.85) 21.00 ($9,700,990)Total Instructional Staff 358.66 (69.87) 288.79 ($3,664,696)Total Estimated Savingsfor Staff Reductions 544.51 (234.72) 309.79 ($13,365,686)

29

Annual Additional Costs (All Schools)

• Discretionary Costs• Utilities and facility costs

• - $88,000 / per school -$1,056,000 total• SOR resource average savings

• - $181,834 / per school - $2,182,008 total• Additional transportation costs

• + $700,000• Support staff due to reductions

• - $9,700,990• Instructional staff due to reductions

• - $3,664,696

30

Additional Cost Associated with the Consolidations

Area Description Financial ImplicationTransportation Current proposal increases the

number of students being transported to schools. Boundary changes will minimize this impact.

+ $700,000 Annually

Facility Maintenance & Upkeep

.5 of a Building Supervisor is included in the proposal to maintain the consolidated facilities.

Schools will continue to be serviced by maintenance teams (i.e. landscaping and cleaning, but at a reduced schedule and therefore costs). These savings have not been estimated at this time.

Relocating of Instructional materials

Books, desks, computers, libraries, manipulatives and other such materials will need to be relocated to the schools where students can use them.

Related departments will be responsible for packing and relocating the materials over the course of the summer, with warehouse staff and related teams. To accomplish this task it is likely that some overtime will be needed, at approx. $9,000/day per school. A one-time budget of $432,000 which includes the added cost of packing materials is budgeted for this purpose.

31

Additional Cost Associated with the Consolidations

Area Description Financial Implication

Provisioning & Program relocation costs

Current proposal requires additional materials for schools that will grow to approach full capacity, and to offset costs of provisioning programs (ESP, Special Education, & TAG)

+ $1,320,000 One Time Costs

Facility Retrofits & Related costs

The three elementary schools that will transition to include middle grades will need minor facility modifications to prepare them appropriately.

+ $2,250,000 One Time Costs

32

Summation of Consolidation Cost Implications

• Consolidation of 6 such schools were included in the proposed budget that is currently under consideration, this proposal suggests 12 such schools.• The proposed budget included 5.6 Million dollars in cost

savings, this proposal presents annual cost reductions of ($16,603,694) including staff, utilities and a portion of school discretionary resources.

• Additional Annual Transportation Costs of $700,000. • Additional Facility renovations, materials to provision all

schools.• Relocation and Provisioning one time costs $432,000.• Additional materials & provisioning for most impacted

schools and programs one time costs $1,320,000• Facility renovations, materials and room ready costs for 3

elementary schools in K-8 transition $2,250,000 (Est. $750,000 each)

33

Costs Benefit Analysis of Reductions

Category Annual Reductions Annual Costs One Time CostsTotal Support staff ($9,700,990)

Discretionary ($3,238,008)Transportation $700,000

Estimated costs of facility modifications needed to support K-8 conversions $2,250,000

Consolidation proposal Total impact ($11,901,694)

Already accounted for In budget proposal ($5,600,000)

Totals ($16,603,694) $700,000 $4,002,000

Provisioning of Receiver Schools $432,000

Total Instructional Staff ($3,664,696)

Estimated costs for Additional Materials & Supplies (18 most heavily impacted schools) $1,320,000

2009-2010 Budget Implication of an additional savings of: ($6,301,694)

34

Costs Benefit Analysis of Reductions

2009-2010 Current Consolidation Budget

Reduction (6 Schools)

2009-2010 Proposed Consolidation Budget

Reduction (12 Schools, with estimates for renovations

and provision costs included)

Additional Reductions Over

Budget Proposal (+6 schools)

($5,600,000) ($11,901,694) ($6,301,694)

Estimated 10-Year Savings Over Current

Spending Levels

($161,334,940)

Estimated 2010 -2011 Consolidation Budget

Implication

Estimated 5-Year Savings Over Current Spending

Levels

($16,603,694) ($78,316,470)

Savings over what PGCPS would spend if the schools remain open at current enrollment levels.

35

Caveats for Budget Analysis

• Opening new ESP school in consolidated locations would reduce savings and increase transportation costs for each school so used.

• Separating the ESP Combined schools would require new provisioning, and potentially renovations which would need to beestimated once site options are being considered.• Big-ticket items would be covered in any high school

considered, but new plumbing fixtures, appropriate library materials, appropriately-sized desk consoles, etc, would need to be procured.

• Placing new or existing charter/contract schools in consolidated schools would result in an additional savings of approximately $200,000 per school in 2009-2010 in rental costs. • School maintenance and food service staff would be needed• Additional savings would be realized in out years as the

schools enroll to their full grade configurations.

36

Next Steps in Consolidation Proposal

• Official notification process• Notification of hearings in at least 2

newspapers with two week notice• Community meetings at each proposed

consolidated school (begins next week)• Written notice of proposal and hearing dates

provided to schools for home delivery.• Letters to households assigned to proposed

consolidation locations sent via US mail.• Posting of Notification and proposal details on

PGCPS Website with link to details

37

Complete Sequence & Timing of County-Wide Review

Areas Timing Grade LevelsImpacted

7, 3, 4 & 1 Jan - March Prek – 8

2, 5 & 6 March – May (changes proposed wouldn’t occur until 1 yr. later).

Prek – 8

8, 9 & 10 June (changes proposed wouldn’t occur until 1 year later).

Prek – 8

County-wide Proposed in Fall 2009 High Schools

38

Meetings & Boundary Hearings TimingDate Subject & Details

Jan. 8, 2009 Boundary Plan and Timetable presented to PGCPS BoardJan. 22nd 2009 Boundary Plan Second Reader

Preliminary Consolidation plan which includes specific schools andestimates of fiscal impacts. Resolution to Consolidate Schools –First Reader.

Jan. 22nd 2009 -February 11, 2009

Public Hearings on Resolution to Consolidation Schools

February 12th

2009Resolution to Consolidate Schools – Second Reader.1st Stage Boundary plan Including Consolidations & Cost benefit Analysis Areas (7, 3, 4 & 1) First Reader.

February 16 2009 -March 12, 2009

Public Hearings on Boundary plans Proposals for Ist Stage

February 18th 2009 Board Approves Budget March 12th 2009 1st Region Boundary plan Including Consolidations & Cost benefit

Analysis Areas (7, 3, 4 & 1): 2nd Reader.March 26th, 2009 2nd Regional Boundary Plan: For Areas (2, 5, & 6) First ReaderMarch 31st 2009 Last Notification Date for Any Consolidations to be approved for

Next year.

39

Date Subject & Details

September -October 2009

Boundary Hearings for High School Boundary Plan proposals (to beimplemented in 2010-2011)

March 27th –April 15th 2009

Boundary Hearings for 2nd Regional Boundary Plan proposals

April 16th 2009 2nd Regional Boundary Plan: For Areas (2, 5, & 6) to be implemented in 2010-2011, 2nd Reader

May 2009 3rd Regional Boundary Plan: Areas 8, 9 & 10: proposed. (for Implementation in 2011) First Reader

May – June 2009

Boundary Hearings for 3rd Regional Boundary Plan proposals

June 2009 3rd Regional Boundary Plan: , Areas 8, 9 & 10: proposed. (for Implementation in 2011) 2nd Reader

September 2009 High School County Wide Boundary Plan Presented to Board (to be implemented in 2010-2011) – First Reader

November High School County Wide Boundary Plan Presented to Board – Second Reader

Board Meeting & Boundary Hearings Timing Continued