have DCPS demand and capacity growth ever been modeled out?

[Anonymous]

I wonder whether anyone has taken the birth and age range data, demand rates for various DCPS and charter schools, their capacities and actually figured out when on stable/growth/decline models we actually have to make decisions and where about boundaries/feeders/new schools or programs?

The reason I think of this is middle school and high school. It's clear there is uneven but strong growth in parts of the citybut it's not at all age ranges. So we sure need middle school but to meet rising growth, it won't be critical for a couple years. And high schools are being built that could remain largely empty for decades. Current students certainly need programming, but our facility choices seem either based on past demographics and demand (e.g., closures) or current snapshots (e.g., the data being provided via the DME advisory council).

Is anyone modeling any of this over time?

[Anonymous]

This is a very good question. All other school systems have demographers on staff performing this kind of analysis. I know DCPS had one many years ago, but I think she was let go when Michelle Rhee came into town.

[Anonymous]

Easy to hire consultants to do this work, but based on the information that's posted by the workgroup focused on looking at boundaries, I haven't seen any reports or findings from modelers or anyone doing that type of analysis.

In addition to using modelers to help determine what the capacities might be, it would be vital to use them to model out the impact of any policy changes around boundaries and school reassignments - this could uncover any unintended consequences.

[Anonymous]

They would also need to model out demographic changes, and changes with regard to other sources/sinks in the model, with regard to what draws people into the city, what pushes people out of the city, as well as what factors there are relating to families putting their kids in charters vs. privates vs. DCPS. Essentially, they also need to do a serious and honest SWOT analysis and then look at risks, opportunities, trends, et cetera over time - since they don't seem to have much of an idea of what's going on or why - and accordingly, will have no means of being able to plan for the future or even stay appropriately relevant or effective in the future.

[Anonymous]

DCPS has no planning. David Catania is trying to get funding for an Office of Planning with DCPS included in this year's budget.

The facilities planning that DCPS does is hardly worthy of the name "planning." A decision is made about which schools to close and which schools to keep open (using methodology known only to a few insiders, certainly not using demographics or any other planning tools.) Once it is decided that a building is to remain open, all facilities decisions are made based on the building -- what does the building need? -- rather than what does the school need, what does the community need, what does the system need.

As for demographics informing boundary decisions, DCPS has not redrawn boundaries in over 40 years, there is no one in the system with expertise.

What you have to keep in mind is that DCPS has approximately one quarter the number of students it had 50 years ago. For the past 50 years, the system has done nothing but shed students and shutter buildings. It still has over 50% more space than it needs for its current enrollment. The enrollment growth and resultant crowding of the past five years is something that DCPS is institutionally unprepared to deal with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS has no planning. David Catania is trying to get funding for an Office of Planning with DCPS included in this year's budget.

The facilities planning that DCPS does is hardly worthy of the name "planning." A decision is made about which schools to close and which schools to keep open (using methodology known only to a few insiders, certainly not using demographics or any other planning tools.) Once it is decided that a building is to remain open, all facilities decisions are made based on the building -- what does the building need? -- rather than what does the school need, what does the community need, what does the system need.

As for demographics informing boundary decisions, DCPS has not redrawn boundaries in over 40 years, there is no one in the system with expertise.

What you have to keep in mind is that DCPS has approximately one quarter the number of students it had 50 years ago. For the past 50 years, the system has done nothing but shed students and shutter buildings. It still has over 50% more space than it needs for its current enrollment. The enrollment growth and resultant crowding of the past five years is something that DCPS is institutionally unprepared to deal with.

Yes, and keep in mind it's not across-the-board growth, it's highly specific to upper NW. DCPS schools elsewhere in the city continue to languish. The exponential growth is almost completely confined to the charter sector.

[Anonymous]

explain how growth is "highly specific to upper NW"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:explain how growth is "highly specific to upper NW"

The more accurate statement might be that overcrowding, yet continued growth, is highly specific to upper NW. The largest schools at each level (by enrollment, not space) are all in upper NW. Two of the three largest elementary schools, the largest middle school and the largest high school are all located within about a 6 block radius and are all growing rapidly in enrollment.

[Anonymous]

I have heard that Matthew Frumin who is on the committee has done some rough projections using census data. From what I understand of that data he thinks Janey may have roughly 2,000 students within 10 years within its current boundaries. Assumptions being the current rate of parents choosing public school, number of baby boomers selling homes, birth rate... lots of possible changes but yes, upper northwest has a perfect storm of issues in that baby boomers selling and leaving the neighborhood and being relatively economically affluent meaning they may have more than just 2 kids means very overcrowded schools. Whereas many other parts of the city are more likely to get more single, empty nesters.

Not sure what his qualifications are to demographic research but just looking at the growth over the last several years, you know Northwest school boundaries need to be re-examined. My guess is that it is not even the current problems, but the future ones that are really pushing politicians out of their stupor.

[Anonymous]

There is a study by the DC Office of Planning forecasting school aged children over the next 10 years and it shows upper NW with the lowest, not greatest growth. Highest growth is in wards 4 and 5 (Capitol Hill) with wards 1 and 2 close behind.

Here's the link: http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/DC_Public_Education_FMP_Appendix_D-E.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a study by the DC Office of Planning forecasting school aged children over the next 10 years and it shows upper NW with the lowest, not greatest growth. Highest growth is in wards 4 and 5 (Capitol Hill) with wards 1 and 2 close behind.

Here's the link: http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/DC_Public_Education_FMP_Appendix_D-E.pdf

Capitol Hill is in Ward 6. I'm surprised growth is not forecast here.

Wards 4 and 5, probably think more Brookland, Petworth. Clearly growing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a study by the DC Office of Planning forecasting school aged children over the next 10 years and it shows upper NW with the lowest, not greatest growth. Highest growth is in wards 4 and 5 (Capitol Hill) with wards 1 and 2 close behind.

Here's the link: http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/DC_Public_Education_FMP_Appendix_D-E.pdf

Capitol Hill is in Ward 6. I'm surprised growth is not forecast here.

Wards 4 and 5, probably think more Brookland, Petworth. Clearly growing.

You're right, my mistake. Ward 8 is also worth mentioning.

[Anonymous]

The DC Public Education Master Facilities Plan offers additional detail on this. http://dc.gov/DC/DME/Media%20Releases/newsroom_archive/Press%20Releases/Final%202013%20DC%20Public%20Education%20Plan.pdf

Capitol Hill is forecast to have significant growth. The study notes that Cluster 25 (north end of Capitol Hill near H St) has the greatest unmet need for preschool slots compared to current school capacity. Cluster 25’s “current capacity is significantly below 2017 projected enrollment” and will have an increase in over 2000 new children to arrive by 2022. It's unclear whether this data is being considered as part of the boundary review process, but it certainly should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS has no planning. David Catania is trying to get funding for an Office of Planning with DCPS included in this year's budget.

The facilities planning that DCPS does is hardly worthy of the name "planning." A decision is made about which schools to close and which schools to keep open (using methodology known only to a few insiders, certainly not using demographics or any other planning tools.) Once it is decided that a building is to remain open, all facilities decisions are made based on the building -- what does the building need? -- rather than what does the school need, what does the community need, what does the system need.

As for demographics informing boundary decisions, DCPS has not redrawn boundaries in over 40 years, there is no one in the system with expertise.

What you have to keep in mind is that DCPS has approximately one quarter the number of students it had 50 years ago. For the past 50 years, the system has done nothing but shed students and shutter buildings. It still has over 50% more space than it needs for its current enrollment. The enrollment growth and resultant crowding of the past five years is something that DCPS is institutionally unprepared to deal with.

+1 The bottom line is that facilities are run separately. Think of all the recent renovations that are out of sync with demographics. Wilson & Deal- modernized and bursting at the seams. Hearst being renovated for around 300 students for ES- isn't the model 400? Then you have Dunbar and Cardozo with beautiful new buildings and no students in them. It would be astounding if it was any other school system but DCPS to learn that they are running without an Office of Planning. Maybe if they had a planning office they would not need a Critical Response team to answer why they keep screwing up things. After 15 years of dealing with DCPS, it's hard to not be cynical. They system brings out the worst in everyone- just look at the threads on DCUM OP's question is spot on- there's just no one in DCPS capable of looking forward.

[Anonymous]

DC has an Office of Planning whose job it is to do population projections, it's their numbers that are in the Master Facilities Plan and that Matt Frumin is quoting. OOP is projecting 45% growth in the under-18 population of DC in the next 10 years.

DCPS doesn't have it's own OOP (yet). The big question mark from the projections is how many kids will choose to attend public schools, and specifically DCPS public schools.

The under-18 population of DC actually declined slightly from 2000 to 2010, the only ward that saw an increase was Ward 3. The increase in DCPS enrollment -- and more dramatically, in total public school enrollment -- of the past few years are more about increased participation in public education that population increases. The next decade should prove to be completely different though.