DC Education Compact1

Workgroup #9: Improving School Buildings & Facilities

Notes of January 06, 2005 Meeting

Participants, Agenda, & Opening Discussion

Participants:

DC Education Compact1

Workgroup #9: Improving School Buildings & Facilities

Notes of January 06, 2005 Meeting

Emet Alexander, 21st Century School Fund

Hugh Allen, DC Congress of PTAs

Reginald Ballard, Cardozo HS

Tom Brady, DCPS

Cornell Brown, DCPS

Robert Cane, FOCUS

Ann Caton, Youth Education Alliance

Brian Cohn, PROP 100%

Linda Cropp, Chair, DC Council

Susan Cunningham, SEED

Alex Donahue, Roosevelt STAY SHS

Mary Filardo, 21st Century School Fund (Chair)

Mary Green, DC Council staff

Jack Koczela, PROP 100%

Eric Lerum, DC Board of Education staff

Tami Lewis, DC Council staff

Leroy McDonald, Anacostia HS PTA

Kathleen Padian, Fight for Children

Victor Reinoso, DC Board of Education

Kendrinna Rodriguez, Office of City Administrator

Bill Schechter, Facilitator, DC Education Compact

Jordan Spooner, 21st Century School Fund

Jonathan Stith, Youth Education Alliance

DC Education Compact1

Workgroup #9: Improving School Buildings & Facilities

Notes of January 06, 2005 Meeting

Agenda: 2-4 pm, DC Council Conference Room, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

  • Opening Session: introductions, new member welcome, agenda overview
  • Charge & Timetable
  • Team Work Sessions & Tasks: 3 teams, 7 tasks
  • Reports Back from Teams
  • Recommended Roles for Sectors & Public
  • Wrap-Up Session: next steps, next meeting, using the EC3 website to communicate

Charge & Timetable:

  • Bill Schechter (the facilitator) reminded everyone of the January 12 deadline for our overall workgroup report, and asked each team to submit their report to him and the workgroup chair (Mary Filardo) by the close of business January 10. He reviewed the schedule for the remaining DCEC deliverables over the next few months.
  • Participants were asked to briefly mention any relevant reports/plans they or their organizations were compiling.
  • Mary Filardo described a report that 21st Century School Fund is preparing with theBrookings Institution (under a contract with the DC City Administrator’s office) that analyzes the DCPS capital improvement program and makes many recommendations in the same areas that the workgroup is covering. She distributed the table of contents to the group, and proposed that they review the draft report (depending upon approval by the City Administrator’s office) as a way to add value.
  • Tom Brady described the work DCPS is doing to reevaluate its FY-06 capital improvement program and the desire to put more emphasis on those areas that require immediate attention (e.g. sealing the building envelopes). Other areas of focus include co-locations and public-private partnerships. He also expressed the importance of stakeholder and community input in the formulation of their plan.
  • Kendrinna Rodriguez provided a brief description and update on the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Four community forums have been scheduled, and workgroup members were asked to participate if possible:

- Wards 5&6: 1/25, 6-9pm @ McKinley Tech Senior High School

- Wards 3&4: 1/26, 6-9pm @ Paul Junior High Charter School

- Wards 7&8: 1/27, 6-9pm @ Ballou Senior High School

- Wards 1&2: 1/29, 8-1am @ Shaw Junior High School

  • A suggestion was made that it would be useful to draft a master timeline of all citywide activities relevant to DCPS facilities.
  • Linda Cropp asked that a report highlighting the most common issues from all such reports be drafted to help identify areas of immediate concern. She also suggested communication with the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Libraries to discuss possible school-library collocations.
  • Regarding the February DCEC community forums, several members expressed concern about how the community would be engaged and how to best inform them.

Team Work Sessions:

The teams worked separately in order to complete the tasks assigned at the 12/21/04 meeting and then reported back to the entire workgroup as follows.

Policy, Process and Portfolio Management Team

What problems are we addressing?

DCPS has a well-recognized portfolio of schools in poor condition. In the past 2 years, ___ new schools or significant renovations have come on line. However, the remaining portfolio’s poor conditions are in part caused by the following problems:

  • Less than complete, accurate and commonly shared information
  • Overall space
  • Surplus in DCPS portfolio
  • Deficiency in DCPCS portfolio
  • Limited capital funds
  • Amounts
  • Continuity
  • Management and control issues
  • Systems
  • Number of people and depth of skill sets
  • Inefficiencies and duplications
  • Permeable school boundaries

What is our definition of success? Measures in 1,3,5 years?

  • One year
  • A well “scrubbed” portfolio data base and analysis based on this data base (3 months)
  • Updated and documented process for consolidations, closings and sharing of space
  • Review of boundary policies and impact on space utilization with detailed report prepared (6 months)
  • Three years
  • Lowering of excess space in terms of absolute amount of square footage
  • Lowering of excess space in terms of the per student square footage ratio
  • Increase of use of space by charters and community organizations
  • Increase in revenue from leases and use permits from third parties
  • Twenty schools “modernized”
  • Five years
  • Continued lowering of excess space, absolute and ratio
  • Continued increase in use and rental income
  • Forty schools modernized

Short-term strategies (quick hits & wins)?

  • Completion and compilation of common set of well explained definitions of space, capacity, and data spread sheets to go with them
  • Review of top ten most likely public/private or public/public partnership campuses with early conceptual ideas on paper
  • Compilation into database of all outside uses of building, including community groups, health clinics, adult education programs, other DC agency uses, leases, etc.
  • Review of top ten most likely facilities for co-habitation with a charter school or closure and then occupancy by a charter
  • Retention of new school facilities specialists (not architects) with real estate development, construction and finance backgrounds
  • Outsourced tasks under contract
  • Compilation of major “health and safety” maintenance lists and completion of 50% of those projects by September 1, 2005

Long-term strategies for progress?

  • Controlled levels of space utilization
  • More funding, with certainty of funds available to sustain long term plan
  • Federal funding
  • Partnerships
  • Program management (outsource modernizations, but managing the outsourcing)
  • Better integration of DCPS and DCPCS on use of school infrastructure/portfolio

Requests to sectors to assist in implementing these strategies?

  • Public officials – make available a certain flow of capital funds; remove barriers to private sector solutions
  • Mayor and CFO
  • Council
  • DCPS and BoE
  • DCPCSB
  • Congress
  • Parents –
  • Principals/teachers
  • Higher Ed
  • Service Providers
  • Foundations/Business – add funding to capital projects

Models and Partnerships Team

What problem are we addressing?

DC public schools are in deplorable conditions, yet DCPS faces limited resources needed to address even the most basic facility issues. There is a lack of adequate capital budget dollars and other sources of financing such as federal tax incentives to fund the redevelopment of schools. In order to bring all schools up to a condition of educational adequacy, DCPS must aggressively pursue creative financing mechanisms and innovative partnerships to help bridge the gap between available funding and facility needs. DCPS’ facilities portfolio has not been adequately or effectively managed in order to best leverage assets and exploit revenue potential. There is a tremendous amount of excess capacity in the system, presenting both a liability and as asset: precious maintenance dollars are spent unnecessarily on underutilized space, but excess capacity presents opportunities for mixed-use development or co-locations with recreational or social services, public charter schools and/or non profit entities.

There is also a lack of capacity to carry out the redevelopment of schools in a timely manner and within budget. Since the BOE adopted the Master Facilities Plan in 2000, only 8 of 147 schools have been modernized or replaced. A lack of trust exists in the community regarding elected officials and DCPS administrators, as well as regarding private sector motives. This presents a challenge for pursuing creative partnerships and financing mechanisms. Showcasing a variety of successful models will help change this negative public perception.

What is our definition of success? Measures in 1, 3,5 years?

Success: School buildings are made educationally adequate on time and on budget; sufficient resources are firmly committed to redeveloping and rebuilding our schools; the public develops trust in DCPS’ capacity to address urgently and efficiently the rebuilding of public schools not only in the short term but also in the long term.

Measures: Year 1:

–a) update the Master Facility Plan;

–b) confirm a realistic cost for redeveloping the schools;

–c) identify the sources of capital funding needed to complete this redevelopment program;

–d) BoE signs a Memo of Understanding with the City’s Office of Planning to redevelop the schools in conjunction with the City’s Comprehensive Plan;

–e) BoE endorses Congresswoman’s Norton’s Bill (HR 4269) – District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2004 which provides an annual payment of $800 million which can be used for debt service payments as well as capital improvement projects for public schools and public charter schools;

–f) BOE establishes in 2005 a Development Company to carry out the redevelopment of the public schools. This company would be managed by an appointed Board of Directors who would be persons from the public and private sectors with expertise in real estate finance, development, construction, and maintenance;

–g) increase in the number of schools financed through mixed-use developments of other creative financing mechanisms such as sale-leasebacks and

–h) increase in the number of co-locations and partnerships.

Years 3 – 5:

–report to the public on the progress and number of schools that have been redeveloped

Short-term strategies

There are examples of successful models that already exist such as the Oyster School/housing development, the Bruce Monroe ES co-location with the charter school KIPP Academy and the co-location of DCPS schools with the STAY program. These must be showcased and presented as case studies from which to learn. In addition to marketing existing models, new ones must be identified and announced (such as the School Without Walls partnership with George Washington University and the Thurgood Marshall Academy co-location with Savoy ES and the Department of Parks and Recreation.) Also, the DCPS inventory must be examined in order to identify likely candidates for mixed-use development.

Longer term strategies

  • Keep running list of QZAB-eligible projects;
  • Monetize DCPS’ portfolio;
  • Develop internal DCPS capacity to carry out public/private partnerships;
  • Develop DCPS’ capacity to carry out a capital improvement program similar to Montgomery and Fairfax Counties which modernize or replace individual schools every 25 years (useful life of facility);
  • Establish a reliable capital improvement budget for DCPS

Requests to sectors to assist in implementing these strategies

(-this section needs to be developed-) A broad initial idea is to survey sectors for recommendations that were not discussed or considered by working group

Role of community in addressing the problem

  • Be firm in demands to improve schools, yet also be realistic in expectations given the severity and breadth of the system-wide needs.
  • Be open to creative mechanisms for building and/or financing schools (mixed-use, co-locations, etc) and help dispel myths that exist in the community.
  • Understand that ideas such as “modernization” need to be redefined.

Community members should be briefed continuously and regularly about the status of the redevelopment of their schools and a forum should be provided for the community to voice issues, concerns and recommendations. The important caveat is that the community should not feel that it has an open slate and that it can ask for anything. This is where the breakdown in trust occurs because the government approaches the community with a “what do you want” approach, promises to deliver, and then fails to deliver. Thus, DCPS needs to do the due diligence to ensure that community expectations are managed and that choices and alternatives are presented for community weigh-in rather than blank slate scenarios.

Community Engagement Team

What problem(s) are we addressing?

DCPS doesn’t do a good enough job of community engagement concerning school facility issues, as evidenced by:

  • Lack of trust by community of DCPS intentions, because of things like insufficient notice of, and inconvenient times for, community meetings
  • Inadequate means for clear communication to all community stakeholders, such as students
  • Lack of information and transparency from DCPS about facilities management
  • Lack of communication of context for facilities management (i.e., budget, staffing, etc.), which can lead to unreasonable or unachievable expectations

What is our definition of success? Measures in 1, 3, 5 years?

  • More people at community meetings
  • More active PTSA’s and LSRT’s which are dealing with facilities issues
  • More partnerships with outside organizations

Short-term strategies (quick hits & wins)?

  • Office of Facilities Management (OFM) – sponsored community forums
  • General phone number (i.e. call center) for community contact with OFM
  • Community guidebook to DCPS school facilities, including information on where the money comes from, how the money is spent (i.e., capital improvement program), a description of OFM, and how the community can be involved.
  • OFM webpage improvements (e.g., school-specific information; opportunity for community feedback; information on impact of facilities on learning, health, etc.)
  • “Good neighbor” fixes to facilities (e.g., spruce up grounds)
  • Student surveys of facility needs

Long-term strategies for progress?

  • More school-specific meetings
  • More language translators
  • Partner with community-based organizations to help with community engagement
  • Adopt a policy to facilitate community partnerships to fix facilities, including an adopt-a-school program
  • Adopt a policy for sufficient community notification on matters such as co-location
  • Adopt a policy to improve overall community engagement
  • More education to students and community about facilities management context (i.e. budget challenges), coupled with training in civic engagement for students and community

Requests to sectors to assist in implementing these strategies?

  • Public officials – make available a calendar/timeline of relevant major milestones; help with marketing and engagement; better community notification
  • Parents – more involvement with and talk about facilities
  • Principals/teachers – culture of openness about community use of facilities; better communication with community stakeholders
  • Higher Ed – adopting schools; providing facilities management expertise
  • Service Providers – strive for better relationships with schools; assistance in developing joint-use policy
  • Foundations/Business – adopting schools, sharing facilities management expertise

Role of community in addressing this problem?

  • Willingness to volunteer
  • Door-to-door conversations with our neighbors, be a force for communication
  • Be committed to going to their children's school
  • Develop relationships with the Principals and Staff

Suggestions for community forums:

  • Draw on expertise from Mayor’s citizens summits
  • Utilize small tables
  • Strive for maximum feedback, particularly in prioritizing needs
  • Ensure good notification & publicity
  • Set up a youth track