Fixing the CIP Process
With the recent release of Dr Hatrick’s recommendation for the Loudoun County Public Schools Capital Improvement Program (CIP), we again enter the cycle of controversy between those who believe the county needs more schools, and those who believe that the county does not. Placing aside the emotion surrounding busing, taxes, and boundaries, the School Board and Board of Supervisors need to approach this issue in a transparent and logical way: not exactly what we have experienced over the last three years.
This issue is complex, but no where near as complex as we have made it. If we could have the two Boards commit to a single course of action, the citizens of Loudoun may be a little more accepting of the final outcome. Without a course of action, we will continue to see the infighting on the Boards, the demoralization of teachers, and the frustration of parents & county staff: all at the expense of our students. There are additional alternatives not included below that are legitimately part of the discussion: however, even if approved, none of them (IMAGINE Schools, charter schools, etc) can be executed in the budget and timeframe necessary to prevent the overcrowding issues we now face.
Step One: The easiest and most important step: agree on the projection numbers. The Planning and Legislative Services Department for LCPS has provided student enrollment projections to the school board for use in construction planning. Evaluating the projections, I have analyzed that at the 4 year projection point, P&LSD has been accurate to an average of 5%; at the 3 year projection, their estimations improve to an accuracy that averages 4%. For projections estimated two years out, the estimates are within an average of 1.5% of subsequent actuals, and one year projections accurately estimate the next academic year’s enrollment to within an average of .25%.
These are the best projections available. When viewed by individual zone, the projections are much less accurate; however, when viewed across the entire county, the numbers are amazingly precise. School construction issues are about aggregate populations, and are much more aligned with broader population estimates, not individual planning zones. While it is possible that the projections can be updated based on 2010 Census information, such estimation "corrections" will require access to information in a timely manner, and in sufficient detail. The Census data's utility will deteriorate with each passing year.
If a member of either Board, or any resident has a better source of data and can provide more reliable and more accurate projections, it is his or her responsibility to identify it. If not, let’s accept the Department of Planning and Legislative Services projections as the best information available, and move to step two.
Step Two: Agree on a maximum amount of overcrowding at any single school. An analysis that the Dulles South Neighbors for Education conducted in 2008 for the new High School (HS-7) described actual impacts on Dulles South schools where student populations reached 0-27% above capacity. The levels of overcrowding identified were as follows:
Level 1: Minimal Overcrowding: At this level, school administrators are able to adjust class sizes by one or two students. Impact on class and upon the individual attention received by each student is minimal, and impact on services (cafeteria, restrooms, auditorium, etc.) is not felt. An over capacity of 5% is an approximation for this level.
Level 2: Perceivable Overcrowding: At this level, the enlarged enrollment has exceeded county goals and additional spaces are needed. Some of the classrooms are reconfigured, e.g.- a music room is transformed into a computer lab. Additional spaces may be used for academics, such as an auditorium. Finally, teachers’ lounges may be converted into classrooms. The impact upon teachers and students becomes evident. These impacts are generally felt with an overcapacity situation from 5% to 10%.
Level 3: Facility Maximization: In this phase, classrooms may be split to provide for two classes at once. Teacher workrooms, once provided for class preparation and grading, are transformed into classrooms. Even custodial closets can be transformed into a teaching space. Current lunch shifts are broken into 4 separate shifts; adding an additional lunch shift or two would be unrealistic as was attempted at
Level 4: Severe Overcrowding: At this stage, teachers are mobile, with teaching carts that contain what is usually kept at their desk. In between classes, they move to available spots. Make up tests and one-on-one tutoring occur at desks placed in the hallways. In extreme cases, entire classrooms are created in sections of the hall wide enough to support temporary divider walls. Hallways are now cluttered with chairs, tables, teaching carts, and bookshelves. Administrators report a primary concern now being safe evacuation of the building in case of emergency. This level occurs at an over capacity of 25%-30%. The most excessive overcrowding in Loudoun County Public Schools history was experienced by Little River Elementary School at 127.5% capacity, followed by Stone Bridge in 2004.
Level 5: Critical Deterioration: We do not have any observations over 27% with which to predict the impact upon the schools. The excess capacity which will be needed is unlikely to be found in neighboring districts, as they each have their own capacity shortfalls.
Despite the opening of Buffalo Trail Elementary School this year, four of the six Dulles South elementary schools will be overcapacity starting in AY 2012. Liberty Elementary, for instance, is projected to open in September 2011 with an enrollment of 112% of capacity. In 2012, Pinebrook Elementary is projected to be 20% above capacity. If a new elementary school (ES-21) does not open in Dulles South in 2013 (it is scheduled for 2014 in the School Board Adopted FY 2012-2016 CIP recommendation, but the Board of Supervisors’ FY 2011-2015 CIP moved it out to 2015), Pinebrook will be operating at 130% capacity, an unacceptable level. In this case, Dulles South Elementary schools should anticipate at least one boundary shift prior to the arrival of ES-21, and then another when ES-21 opens.
Recommendation on Overcapacity: The description above of facilities and issues associated with an enrollment over 20% above capacity should be an easy benchmark upon which the vast majority of citizens (and both Boards) could agree: additional capacity must be provided to a school when its enrollment exceeds capacity by 20%.
Step Three: Determine an acceptable policy for busing students. This policy should state a maximum value in minutes or miles for which a student can be bussed. Also, the policy should prohibit isolating students by sending students from one community to multiple alternative schools.
Step Four: Determine whether adjacent schools have capacity. This may be a more complex problem as multiple schools vie for the same excess seats at neighboring schools.
Step Five: Finally, a determination must be made as to whether building additions to existing facilities (whether brick and mortar or trailers) or building larger schools is more advantageous than our current school designs. Each has significant drawbacks, but a general policy approved before the turmoil of boundary changes will enhance the credibility of the process and make it less susceptible to political manipulation. Residents will generally support a documented, reasonable process that evokes a sense of countywide fairness and transparency while mitigating the turmoil associated with such decisions. Along with general policy should be a specific Cost Benefit Analysis with which to make the best decision for the parents, the taxpayer, and most importantly, the students.
The challenge that remains is to determine the true impact of overcrowding and busing upon students AND teachers. Measuring the “cost” and “benefit” of boundary changes is very challenging: measuring the need to build (or build on to) schools is not.
Jeffrey Morse
DSNFE
