Case Studies
Here are some case studies of other facilities plans informed by broader logics.
School Facilities Planning in Charter Schools: Landscape in Philadelphia & Recommendations
By Rebecca Yi | M.S.Ed Candidate in Education Policy, University of Pennsylvania
Background
Charter schools are created out of a “charter” or contract from a public entities (e.g., local school board, state board of education). Such contracts give charter schools more autonomy compared to traditional public schools in exchange for increased accountability. In order to renew their contracts, charter schools must “prove” their value, but they are often exempt from the regulations of most public schools. Charter schools are often considered part of a public school district, but operate by a different system.
Charter schools are especially prevalent in the city of Philadelphia. The School District of Philadelphia (SDP) has widely accepted the use of charters, as the district ranks 5th in the U.S. on the highest percentage of students attending charter schools. (I.e., only districts in New Orleans, Detroit, the District of Columbia, and Cleveland have higher percentages of students in charters than Philadelphia.2)
Facility Conditions in Philadelphia’s Schools
Many schools in the city of Philadelphia have abhorrent facility conditions due to a combination of aging buildings (e.g., the average school building is 75 years old) and the failure of the district to prioritize repairs and maintenance. The conditions in numerous schools are simply unacceptable for student health and learning.
Many teachers, parents, and students who have spoken out about this issue were met with little action from district administration. For example, teachers at Philadelphia’s Julia R. Masterman School recently protested unsafe building conditions caused by unresolved asbestos and a lack of communication from the district. In response, Superintendent William Hite said the district addressed all cases of damaged asbestos and that, “Based on the most recent inspection and repairs conducted, no known damage of asbestos remains at the school.”4
Figure 1. Councilwoman Helen Gym speaks in front of teachers at Masterman High School who are concerned about asbestos issues at the school off Spring Garden. Source: https://philadelphia.chalkbeat.org/2021/8/26/22643657/masterman-teachers-protest-unsafe-conditions
Despite the egregious conditions in Philadelphia’s schools, there is limited information about the physical conditions of most charter schools in the SDP. Available data from the SDP website suggest that despite generally positive public perceptions of charters, many charters in Philadelphia struggle with the basic principle of facilities maintenance. Many charter school buildings require refurbishment or replacement; in particular, specific facility systems are in dire need of replacement (see data below).
The following are aggregated data from the 27 of 77 charter schools in the SDP that have recorded and uploaded Facilities Conditions Assessments (FCAs).
Note: A Facilities Condition Index (FCI) of greater than 60% indicates that the building or system should be considered for closure or replacement (see Figure 2).
Average Overall Building FCI is 35.33%
Average FCI for Radiators/Unit Ventilators/HVAC is 94.20%
Average FCI for Heating/Cooling Controls is 117.40%
Average FCI for Electrical Service and Distribution is 86.1%
Figure 2. FCI Tiers and Classification. Source: Individual School Facility Condition Assessment Summary Reports, School District of Philadelphia Website.
There is a clear need to include charter schools when considering the conditions of SDP facilities. Failure to address such building and system needs will lead to serious and adverse impacts on student health and learning environment.
In particular, charter schools must be considered in broader district plans because many students have no other option but to attend the closest ‘neighborhood charter school’. For example, 21 Renaissance charter schools in Philadelphia only enroll students who live within its neighborhood catchment area, functioning similarly to a traditional public school. Despite public perception that parents can choose high quality charters, the reality is that some students have no other option but to attend a charter school. If students are required to attend school - whether traditional or charter - the district must also be held accountable to ensure the safe learning conditions.
Facilities Planning Practices for Charters in Philadelphia
While the SDP creates reports of FCAs that outlines different scenarios for capital spending, the district does not have a facilities master plan (or equivalent document) that outlines decision-making on its website.
An unofficial school district report on long range facilities planning does not address toxic substances in buildings (e.g., asbestos, mold, etc.)
Given the lack of publicly-available data, information about facilities planning and practices within charter schools is also very limited. Available information about one Philadelphia charter school system suggest that deregulation failed to prioritize safety needs. According to a report compiled by NewSchools Venture Fund that summarizes facilities maintenance practices from various charter schools,
“Mastery has no Asbestos Hazard Emergency Abatement Requirements Act (AHERA) plan. Mastery has undoubtedly addressed and abated, if necessary, any potential asbestos hazards during the course of modernizing facilities.” (Appendix I)
Mastery outsources janitorial tasks, regular maintenance, emergency repairs, and heating/cooling, electrical, and IT systems tasks. (Appendix I)
Although the report is dated and may not be reflective of current practices in Mastery Schools, it (1) demonstrates how a lack of regulation can allow for questionable practices and (2) leads us to question whether outsourcing maintenance work is effective - even though it may save costs, does it impede a school’s ability to schedule regular maintenance? Furthermore, the lack of available data suggests failure in areas of transparency and accountability.
Facilities Planning Practices for Charters across the U.S.
Horizon Academy West Charter School, New Mexico
In light of the State of New Mexico’s mandate for all all public school districts (including charter schools) to have a preventative maintenance plan, Horizon Academy West Charter School provides an example of foundational practices in a charter school. The following are components of Horizon Academy West’s 5 year maintenance plan: (1) Goals & Process, (2) Existing Conditions, (3) Proposed Facility Requirements, (4) Capital Plan, (5) Support material.
Figure 3. Table of Contents of Facilities Plan for Horizon Academy West Charter School. Source: https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HAW_PartE.pdf
District of Columbia (D.C.) Public Schools, Washington D.C.
The District of Columbia (D.C.)Public Schools also has a detailed master facilities plan with analyses from all types of schools within the district, including charter schools. Of note, the plan briefly describes plans in place to address safety concerns (e.g., lead in drinking water, asbestos, carbon monoxide, and emergency readiness).
Figure 4. Excerpt from the Master Facilities Plan of D.C. Public Schools. Source: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/DC%20Public%20Education%20Master%20Facilities%20Plan%202018.pdf
Conclusions & Recommendations
Schools in Philadelphia are in great need of facilities replacement and maintenance. The SDP lacks a master facilities plan that addresses the needs of all schools within the district. The following section (1) suggests potential avenues to gain traction and (2) provides further resources.
Push for action at the state level. Setting expectations and direction at the state level is one avenue to bring this issue at the forefront. As mentioned previously, the State of New Mexico’s mandate for preventative maintenance plans is a piece of legislature that urges schools - including charters - to see the physical learning environment as a crucial component of learning. New Mexico requires districts to develop both a comprehensive Facility Master Plan and a Preventive Maintenance Plan to be eligible for funding. Mandates and other legislation that address school facilities funding may be difficult to establish, but it remains as one potential avenue of change that would have large-reaching impacts.
At the district level, restart and expand Comprehensive School Planning Review (CSPR) efforts. In 2019, the SDP announced the implementation of a Comprehensive School Planning Review (CSPR) that would start in the fall. According to the SDP website, key goals of CSPR were:
Optimize the use of school buildings city-wide
Invest limited capital dollars where they are needed most
Create thoughtful transitions for students at elementary and middle grades;
Maximize the use of public (City/District) assets;
Better support academic programs that prepare our students for college and career success
Due to COVID-19, this effort was canceled for 2020 and the district has yet to announce if and when the process restarts. Positioning school facilities as a component of CSPR may be one avenue for advocates to push for district action.
Examples of resources, guides related to facilities planning.
The State of New Mexico Public School Facilities Authority and California Department of Education (CDE) provide resources to support the development of comprehensive facilities plans (below). The CDE also provides information to assist school districts and charter schools in seeking state facility funding assistance.
New Mexico: https://www.nmpsfa.org/wordpress/preventive-maintenance-pm-planning/
CDE: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/bp/documents/masterplans.pdf
CDE information for charter schools: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/cs/
School Facilities Planning and Funding System In China, Norway, and Washington D.C
By Wenjing Fang, Jerry （Yeqing）Shang | Landscape Architecture, University of Pennsylvania
-
China
Education System
Funding System
Facility Maintenance and Construction process
-
Norway
Education System
Funding System
-
Washington. DC
Public School System
Funding System
Renovation and Construction System
CHINA
Chinese Education System Overview
In China, education is divided into three categories: basic education, higher education, and adult education.
Education in China is primarily managed by the state-run public education system, which falls under the command of the Ministry of Education. All citizens must attend school for a minimum of nine years, known as nine-year compulsory education, which is funded by the government. (Figure 1.)
Compulsory education includes six years of primary education, typically starting at the age of six and finishing at the age of twelve, followed by three years of junior secondary education (junior middle school). Junior middle schooling is followed by three years of senior middle school, by the end of which secondary education is completed. (Figure 2.)
Figure 1. Chinese Education System Overview Source:https://wenr.wes.org/2019/12/education-in-china-3
Figure 2. Chinese School Education System
Chinese Education Funding System
The national taxes will go from the state council to the National Education Bureau, which consists of 4.2％ GDP .10% of the national education Bureau and 17% of Province tax will be investing in higher education). 56% of the Municipal level tax will be funding Upper Secondary Schools, Secondary Education, and Primary Schools. Budget distribution will depend on student number.
China offers nine years of free, compulsory education, but fees are levied at state-run senior secondary schools.
The Funding includes:
Salaries:
Staff teachers
Maintenance people
Facilities:
Books
Toolkits
School Facilities……
If Exceed:
Use Other schools’ remaining budget
Cut off from next year budget
Figure 3. Chinese School Education Funding System
A Typical School Facility Repairing Process
1. Spotting the issues:
Report the issues. Students/ teachers fill out the form to show where is the problem
School Weekly check for the public facilities. (electricity/lamp/water/facility )
2. Collecting the problems:
The logistics department collects the reports, analysis, evaluate the cost.
3. Renovation process:
Small issues:
In-School Repair by school maintenance people - Finish by the day
Bigger damage：
1. Appointment for professional maintenance people-Finish by the week/not take too much class time
2. School report to the local education department and the big renovation will be operated through Education Bureau bidding.
New School Construction System
The Mandatory facility construction policy was conducted after the Housing Marketization Completion in 1998.
Developers must build facilities including public schools if they want to develop a land lot.
Figure 4. New School Construction System
Chinese Education and School Facility Plan Summary
Figure 5. Chinese Education and School Facility Plan Summary (Self Drawing)
Norway
Norway Education System Overview
The Norwegian system is similar to those elsewhere in Europe and is divided into three levels:
• Primary and lower-secondary schools, compulsory for six- to 16-year-olds.
• Upper-secondary schools, elective for 16- to 19-year-olds.
• Higher education, electives for young adults, and offering degree programs at universities, university-level institutions, and colleges.
Figure 1. NorwayEducation System Overview Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Norway
Figure 2. Norway School Education System
Norway Education Funding System
Norway has generous funding at all levels of the education system. Public education is free, except at the pre-primary level where parents pay fees.
Expenditure on education institutions as a percentage of GDP (for all educational levels combined) is one of the highest among OECD countries. (7.6％ in 2018)
Education is controlled and funded by the central government. Government regulations cover such issues as class size, length of the school year, teaching obligations, and a minimum number of lessons offered. Even teacher salaries are controlled by the central government as teachers are civil servants and, as such.
In 1985, in an effort to transfer decision-making in education from the central government to local municipalities, the financing of schools was altered.
On the other hand, local governments control the number and location of schools, the hiring of teachers, and the maintenance of their schools. All comprehensive and upper secondary schools are under the control of the Ministry of Church and Education.. Each of the 20 counties in Norway has a school board. Members of each board are appointed by the county council which must give each political party representation on the school board in the proportion to which that party is represented on the county council. County school boards are responsible for the teachers and principals, and the county council votes on the annual budget for the school.
Figure 3. Norway Expenditure on education by Year
Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=NO-CN
Figure 4. Flows of Public funding in Norway (2019)
Source: https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=NOR
Figure 5. Norway National financial report 2019- Education Secton
Figure 6. Norway Education and School Facility Plan Summary (Self Drawing)
Washington DC
Figure 1. Public schools in DC ( https://dcps.dc.gov/)
Overview
Public education for students from pre-K through adulthood is offered through two systems in the District of Columbia: DC Public Schools (DCPS) and DC public charter schools (PCS).
the public school system in DC Serves as one of the basic infrastructures in the district
More information:
Funding system
Involved agencies
The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education (DME) : coordinates and implements the Mayor’s vision and strategy for education
Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE): OSSE is DC’s state education agency (SEA) and the District’s liaison to the U.S. Department of Education. Relating to school finance, OSSE:
Department of General Services (DGS): This agency manages construction projects across the DC government, including DCPS school construction, maintenance, and repairs.
The DC Public Charter School Board (DC PCSB): DC PCSB is the sole authorizer of the city’s public charter schools.
District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS): DCPS is considered a Local Education Agency (LEA) under federal guidelines and allocates funding to individual schools within the DCPS system through its central office.
Public Charter Schools (PCS): Public charter schools are funded publicly but operated independently.
District of Columbia Retirement Board: Teacher pension plans for all DCPS staff with educational certification are funded through the Teachers’ Retirement Plan, a program run by the DC Retirement Board.
Funding resources
Public education in the district is funded through several revenue sources, including local, federal, and private dollars.
Local Funds: the main source
The most part of local funds is through the UNIFORM PER STUDENT FUNDING FORMULA (UPSFF). In FY 2020, some 1.8 billion in local dollars was allocated through the UPSFF. The city allocated $902,522,981 to DCPS and $904,768,857 to public charter LEAs through the UPSFF.
Also, other district agencies for other certain functions, including:
School police officers and nurses are staffed by the departments responsible for those functions across the city.
Local funding support from DGS for construction and maintenance for school facilities.
Some legal services, including those stemming from a special education lawsuit or claim, are provided to DCPS by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG)
School resource officers, which are funded by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
School nurses and mental health professionals are placed in schools by the Department of Health (DOH) and the Department of Behavioral Health (DBH). However, not all public and public charter schools are guaranteed health professionals or school resource officers who are onsite throughout the day. Currently, the Children's School Services Program places school nurses in 110 DCPS and 68 public charter schools.
The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) provides crossing guards to some schools.
What is UPSFF?
The UPSFF is used to determine annual operating funding for the District's traditional and charter public schools. It also controls facilities funding for the public charter schools.
This budget determine system was firstly designed in 1996 by DC education officials, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Mayor, DC Council, and local education experts . Funding under the UPSFF is a straightforward mathematical process. First, each District-resident student enrolled in a DC public school is provided with a "foundation level" of funding, projected at $8,945 for FY 2010 (the foundation level is adjusted each year for inflation and can be increased or decreased by legislation). To the foundation are added various additional amounts, called "weightings," for students at certain grade levels and for students with special needs, including: students with disabilities, limited English proficiency (also known as ELL), at-risk status and students in alternative/ adult/ residential schools.
Figure 2. DC Education and School Facility Plan Summary (Self Drawing)
How Does Each DCPS School Get its Funding and Set its Budget based on the UPSFF?
Figure 3. DCPS UPSFF process (Self Drawing)
How Does Each DC Public Charter School Get its Funding and Set its Budget based on the UPSFF?
Figure 4. PCS UPSFF process (Self Drawing)
More information of exact weights and dollars:
OSSE’S REPORT ON THE UNIFORM PER STUDENT FUNDING FORMULA
Report from DME to the Chairman 2019
Resources:
Investing in Our Kids-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOOL FINANCE PRIMER
Federal Funds
DC also receives federal funding to support its public education system. Federal grants make up a small percentage of the education budget, but they help finance critical programs.
Figure 5. Federal funds allocation process (Self Drawing)
Titles I-IV of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) make up the largest source of federal funding for education.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides the second-largest source of federal funding.
Private Funds
DCPS and DC public charter LEAs also look for private funding to boost their budgets each year.
DC Public Education Fund is a non-profit organization that connects DCPS with the philanthropic community.
The DC PCSB Financial Analysis Report includes the philanthropic donations given to each public charter LEA.
Many parent associations and other groups raise funds for specific purposes, such as additional staff positions, extracurricular activities, teacher grants, equipment and supplies, social events, and recruitment. Some schools ask parents to pitch in a set amount per year to allow the tuition-free school to continue to offer some services, such as afterschool programs or other activities.
Resources:
Investing in Our Kids-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOOL FINANCE PRIMER
Renovation and Construction System
The renovation and construction of public schools and charter schools are two different systems. So we will discuss separately.
DCPS facilities
Long-term Infrastructure Investments
DCPS school renovation and construction are considered long-term infrastructure investments for the city and fall under the DC Capital Budget.
The DCPS capital budget is reworked every year with the rest of the city’s capital budget and is largely financed with borrowing through general obligation municipal bonds issued by District government. The District pays off these bonds over 20 to 30 years.
Centralized
Those schools operate in buildings owned and controlled by the District, and DGS manages major repairs and renovations. Also, the district proposed overall and regularly revised renovation plan.
Master Facilities Plan
In 1995, the District created a Public Education Master Facilities Plan, which launched a strategic process to update or “modernize” DCPS facilities on a regular basis.
The latest revision was completed in 2018.
Capital Improvement Plan
The CIP is a six-year plan for capital construction, including schools, with specific projects listed along with their funding and construction schedule. The CIP includes the following types of facilities improvements:
Modernization and Replacements: Long-term plans for complete renovation of selected schools; the modernization process is tackled in three phases: academic spaces, support spaces, and systems.
Small Capital Projects: Upgrade of certain sections of a school, such as science labs.
Component Replacements: Major maintenance, like roof replacements.
Mandates: Federally required changes, such as improvements related to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Figure 6. Capital Improvement Plan Procedure (Self Drawing)
Modernization
Facility Condition Assessments and Cost Estimate
DCPS is working with the Department of General Services and the Deputy Mayor for Education to conduct facility condition assessments (FCAs) on all active DCPS schools.
The aim of the assessments is to quantify the physical condition of DCPS buildings in order to guide stabilization efforts and prioritize schools for upcoming modernization. The facility condition index (FCI), a product of the report, is a key factor in the PACE prioritization model that DCPS uses to rank schools for modernization.
Participated Roles
School Modernizations in the District of Columbia are managed through a collaboration between the Department of General Services and the District of Columbia Public Schools.
DC Public Schools: To lead the programming development, education specifications, community engagement and design approval of the building.
Department of General Services (DGS): To provide technical and project management facilitation for major school modernization or new construction.
School Improvement Teams (SIT): A School Improvement Team (SIT) is established at every school where a major capital project (to include modernization, school replacement, addition, renovation or remodeling) is scheduled within the next 1-2 fiscal years. The team is engaged in the planning, design, and construction phases.
Current Situations
More than three-quarters of DCPS school facilities have been modernized or renovated since 2002. 20 additional schools are slated for modernization between fiscal years 2019 and 2024.
More information:
Capital Improvement Plan Prioritization for fiscal years 2018-2023
Capital Improvement Plan Prioritization for fiscal years 2024 and beyond
Resources:
Investing in Our Kids-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOOL FINANCE PRIMER
PCS facilities
Overview
The city does not provide public charter schools with facilities, so public charter LEAs must purchase and improve their own facilities.
Buildings
Some charter schools lease buildings from DCPS, but most are in other facilities.
As of the 2017-18 school year,
31 public charter schools were leasing District-owned buildings,
40 were leasing via private or commercial leases,
22 owned their facilities through private acquisition
9 owned former DCPS buildings.
Funding Resources:
Facility Allowance: Based on UPSFF
Office of Public Charter School Financing and Support (OPCSFS):
Managing several funding programs
Passing federal funding to schools
Programs provide grants as well as credit support for public charter schools doing facility projects or purchasing property
Other Resources
Resources:
Investing in Our Kids-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOOL FINANCE PRIMER
Figure 7. DC Education and School Facility Plan Summary (Self Drawing)
Conclusion and Comparison
-
CHINA
As basic INFRASTRUCTURES
Owned by District
Local funds, mostly based on enrollment
For both construction and other uses
Workers in School + Companies
No complete regular assessment system
Regional public school planning
Uncompleted existing school renovation plans
Mandatory facility construction policy
-
NORWAY
As basic INFRASTRUCTURES
Generous funding in Education
Public School Administered by local community authorities
County council votes on the annual budget for the school.
-
WASHINGTON D.C.
For DCPS
As basic INFRASTRUCTURES
Owned by District
Capital Budgets
DGS + School improvement teams
Completed regular assessment system and cost estimation system
Completed regional renovation plans
For PCS
Purchasing and improving by the school
Facility allowance in UPSFF
OPCSFS
No regional plan