Volume 2 - June Final (2)

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT REPORT
NO. 2VOLUME

PLANNING AREA REVIEW GUIDE
PLANNING AREA REVIEWS 1-40
2.0
2.1
Table of Contents
Volume No. 2

J U N E 2 0 1 5 i
PLANNING AREA
REVIEW GUIDE
 Introduction
 Planning area review guide
 List of schools and associated planning area
2.0

PRINCES GEORGES COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E . E M P O W E R . A D V A N C E .ii
INTRODUCTION
The project team organized the county into 40 planning areas to ensure that individual capital projects and
related master planning activities are recommended in coordination with nearby schools and to make
certain that the mission-based principles, as defined in Volume One, Section Five, are applied equitably
across the district. These planning areas represent small groupings of schools of the same grade level by
general geographic location. For elementary schools, these groupings typically represent three to six
schools that share common communities. Middle and high schools are typically grouped by region
(Northern, Central, Southern). Maps 3.1.2a through 3.2.2c show all of the planning areas and a list of all
schools with their corresponding planning area is provided at the end of this section.
PLANNING AREA REVIEW GUIDE
Following is a summary of the contents reported within each of the 40 planning area review documents
along with definitions of terms needed to understand the information. A review of factual observations and
school assessment reports and data for each planning area is included in this report volume.
Methodologies for the data collection and assessments is described in Volume 1, Section 4. Volume 4 will
include capital project and master planning considerations and recommendations for each planning area.
PLANNING AREA SUMMARY
Planning Area Map – The map illustrates the location of each school in the planning area and all adjacent
planning areas. Building footprints are shown to give an indication of population centers. Each
neighborhood school boundary is represented by a different color and adjacent school boundaries are
shown in grey. Regional schools located within the planning areas are represented by an asterisk.
Introduction – Provides an overview of planning area characteristics, including a list of the neighborhood
and regional schools1 located within the planning area and the number of seats per the As-Studied State
Rated Capacity and projected enrollment for 2020, post-grade level realignment.
Observations – This section provides a narrative list of facts and data known about the schools in the
planning area. The narrative generally covers the following, as appropriate, per planning area:
 Student population sizes and transportation percentages.
 Adjusted age of school facilities.
 Current distribution of special education services and specialty academic programs.
 Facility condition and educational adequacy priority scores.
1 Neighborhood schools are defined as those that have a defined geographical feeder zone as depicted
on the maps, while regional schools operate programs open to students districtwide.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 iii
The narrative is followed by a Descriptive Data Table which includes:
 School Data
o “Region” indicates location within the county.
o “Yr Blt” is the original date of building construction.
o “Adj Age” refers to the state-adjusted age of the building based on previous construction
projects. If blank, indicates a capital project in progress or not provided to the Project Team.
 Student School Bus Transportation Split - identifies the percentage split of students who PGCPS
is responsible for providing transportation based upon the walk zone for each school per the
approved Board of Education policy.
 Descriptive Data
o Includes assessment results based upon facility conditions (“WFCI Priority”), educational
adequacy (“EA Priority”), and “Overall Priority.”
o Each score is calculated on a range from one to 25, with one indicating highest level of
urgency and 25 the lowest.
o Data is provided for both neighborhood and regional schools located in the planning area
for schools included in the educational adequacy assessments survey and/or Parsons’
facility condition assessment dataset.
School Size and Utilization – This section provides a characterization of the size and utilization of each
school within the planning area.
 Capacity
o “As-Studied SRC” is the proposed State-rated capacity of the school.
 FTE Enrollment
o “Current” column is the number of students attending during the 2014-2015 school year
o “2020 Projected Realigned” is the projected enrollment based on realigned middle school
grade-level reconfigurations. Data used was based on projections as of February 12, 2015.
 Utilization is a function of enrollment divided by capacity. The table indicates utilization for each
school based upon the current and projected enrollment figures and the as-studied SRC.
 Available Seats
o This section indicates the number of student that could be sent from or received into the
school to achieve a utilization rate of 85% or 100%.
o Negative numbers indicate the potential number of students to send to another school
through a boundary adjustment to reach a utilization rate of 85% or 100%.
o Positive numbers represent the capacity to receive students through a boundary
adjustment to reach a utilization rate of 85% or 100%.

B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E . E M P O W E R . A D V A N C E .iv
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Detailed information for each of the 163 schools included in the educational adequacy assessment survey
group is provided following the planning area summary review. The educational adequacy assessment
methodology is described in Volume 1, Section 4 and the full survey is located in Appendix 3.2.5. The
individual school assessment summary reports provided in this volume include each school’s educational
adequacy field report, educational adequacy scorecard, and space adequacy worksheet.
It is important to note that although the planning area reviews included all PGCPS schools, the detailed
educational adequacy assessments were not conducted on any schools that are less than 15 years old
Therefore these schools do not have field reports or score guards. The 31 schools that were not part of
the educational adequacy assessments are as follows:
Accokeek Academy at Henry Ferguson Judge Sylvania W. Woods Sr. ES
Accokeek Academy at Burroughs Lake Arbor ES
Accokeek Academy Annex Mary Harris “Mother” Jones ES
Avalon ES Meadowbrook ES
Barack Obama ES Northview ES
Bladensburg HS Northwestern HS
Charles Herbert Flowers HS Oxon Hill HS
Cora L. Rice ES Perrywood ES
Doswell E. Brooks ES Port Towns ES
Dr. Henry A. Wise Jr. HS Robert R. Gray ES
Edward M. Felegy ES Rosa Parks ES
Ernest Evertt Just MS Samuel Massie Academy
Fairmont Heights HS Suitland ES
G. James Gholson MS Vansville ES
These schools were assessed, and rated, solely on the district-approved survey questions based on school
type. There are several unique schools within the system. Certain schools, such as Pre-K-8 or those
housing regional specialty programs, do no fall into a specific category, so they were assessed using a
combination of both surveys. Assessment results reflect conditions and uses observed at the time of the
assessment.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 v
Educational Adequacy Field Report
This field report identifies high priority deficiencies as well as observations made in the field by the assessor.
The “Overall Assessment” section refers solely to the field observations on educational adequacy based
upon the survey tool and conditions observed at the time of the assessment and do not take into account
information reflected in the Parsons’ report. “Additional observations” provide other notable observations
made by the assessor that do not align directly with a survey question.
The “Initial Project Recommendation” reflects the assessor’s review and analysis of educational adequacy
results and understanding of physical condition based upon a review of the available data. These
recommendations establish a baseline for the school but do not take into account the impact of
modifications to nearby schools and may be adjusted to support the overall program based upon a
comprehensive evaluation of the planning areas. Modifications to project recommendations will be included
in Volume Four.
Educational Adequacy Scorecard
The educational adequacy score is calculated as a percent compliant out of a total possible score by
subsection. The scorecard is broken into three sections: campus assessment, individual space
assessment, and space adequacy. The scorecard was calculated by rating each section’s subcomponent
as excellent, satisfactory, borderline, poor, or deficient. More detail on the scoring methodology is available
in Volume One.
Space Adequacy Worksheet
The worksheet is a comparison of the existing learning spaces and total square footage of those spaces
against the requirements set in the educational specifications. The score is calculated as the percentage
of space compliant out of the total space required. There are four general groupings of spaces: capacity
driving spaces, specialty spaces, shared spaces, and support and admin spaces. A space adequacy score
can be greater than 100%, which indicates a school has excess space. Space adequacy worksheets are
provided for all schools.

B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E . E M P O W E R . A D V A N C E .vi
SCHOOLS AND ASSOCIATED PLANNING AREA
School Name PA No. School Name PA No.
Accokeek Academy @ Burroughs 32 Crossland HS 40
Accokeek Academy @ Henry Ferguson ES 32 Deerfield Run ES 1
Accokeek Academy Annex 32 District Heights ES 21
Adelphi ES 3 Dodge Park ES 15
Allenwood ES 27 Doswell E. Brooks ES 20
Andrew Jackson Academy 24 Dr Henry A. Wise Jr. HS 39
Annapolis Road Academy Alternative HS 38 Drew-Freeman MS 37
Apple Grove ES 29 DuVal HS 38
Ardmore ES 16 Dwight D. Eisenhower MS 34
Arrowhead ES 22 Edward M. Felegy ES 6
Avalon ES 27 Eleanor Roosevelt HS 38
Baden ES 33 Ernest Everett Just MS 36
Barack Obama ES 22 Fairmont Heights HS 39
Barnaby Manor ES 25 Flintstone ES 26
Beacon Heights ES 13 Forest Heights ES 26
Beltsville Academy 2 Forestville HS 40
Benjamin D. Foulois Academy 24 Fort Foote ES 28
Benjamin Stoddert MS 37 Fort Washington Forest ES 32
Benjamin Tasker MS 35 Frances R. Fuchs ECC 2
Berwyn Heights ES 5 Francis Scott Key ES 20
Bladensburg ES 12 Francis T. Evans ES 30
Bladensburg HS 38 Frederick Douglass HS 40
Bond Mill ES 1 Friendly HS 40
Bowie HS 39 G. James Gholson MS 36
Bowie/ Belair High Annex 39 Gaywood ES 9
Bradbury Heights ES 20 Gladys Noon Spellman ES 14
Brandywine ES 33 Glassmanor ES 26
Buck Lodge MS 34 Glenarden Woods ES 15
C. Elizabeth Rieg Regional 17 Glenn Dale ES 9
Calverton ES 2 Glenridge ES 13
Capitol Heights ES 20 Green Valley Academy 40
Carmody Hills ES 18 Greenbelt ES 5
Carole Highlands ES 6 Greenbelt MS 34
Carrollton ES 8 Gwynn Park HS 40
Catherine T. Reed ES 9 Gwynn Park MS 37
Central HS 39 H Winship Wheatley ECC 21
Cesar Chavez ES 6 Heather Hills ES 10
Chapel Forge ECC 10 High Bridge ES 10
Charles Carroll MS 34 High Point HS 38
Charles Herbert Flowers HS 39 Highland Park ES 18
Cherokee Lane ES 3 Hillcrest Heights ES 25
Chillum ES 6 Hollywood ES 4
Clinton Grove ES 30 Hyattsville ES 7
Columbia Park ES 15 Hyattsville MS 34
Concord ES 20 Indian Queen ES 28
Cool Spring ES 3 Isaac J. Gourdine MS 37
Cooper Lane ES 14 J. Frank Dent ES 27
Cora L. Rice ES 18 James E Duckworth Regional 2
Croom Vocational HS @ Rica 40 James H. Harrison ES 1

J U N E 2 0 1 5 vii
School Name PA No. School Name PA No.
James Madison MS 37 Princeton ES 27
James McHenry ES 9 Ridgecrest ES 6
James Ryder Randall ES 30 Riverdale ES 7
John H. Bayne ES 21 Robert Frost ES 8
John Hanson French Immersion 25 Robert Goddard French Immersion 5
John Hanson Montessori 26 Robert Goddard Montessori 9
Judge Sylvania W. Woods Sr. ES 15 Robert R. Gray ES 18
Judith P. Hoyer Montessori 18 Rockledge ES 10
Kenilworth ES 10 Rogers Heights ES 12
Kenmoor ES 15 Rosa L. Parks ES 6
Kenmoor MS 36 Rosaryville ES 31
Kettering ES 19 Rose Valley ES 29
Kettering MS 36 Samuel Chase ES 27
Kingsford ES 16 Samuel Ogle MS 35
Lake Arbor ES 16 Samuel P. Massie Academy 24
Lamont ES 8 Scotchtown Hills ES 1
Langley Park-McCormick ES 3 Seabrook ES 9
Largo HS 39 Seat Pleasant ES 18
Laurel ES 1 Skyline ES 24
Laurel HS 38 Springhill Lake ES 5
Lewisdale ES 6 Stephen Decatur MS 37
Longfields ES 21 Suitland ES 24
Magnolia ES 9 Suitland HS 40
Margaret Brent Regional 8 Suitland HS Annex 40
Marlton ES 31 Suitland HS Vocational Wing 40
Martin Luther King Jr. MS 34 Surrattsville HS 40
Mary Harris Mother Jones ES 3 Tall Oaks Vocational HS 39
Mattaponi ES 31 Tayac ES 29
Melwood ES 31 Templeton ES 12
Montpelier ES 1 Thomas Claggett ES 21
Mt. Rainier ES 11 Thomas G. Pullen Academy 18
Nicholas Orem MS 34 Thomas Johnson MS 35
North Forestville ES 21 Thomas S. Stone ES 11
Northview ES 17 Thurgood Marshall MS 37
Northwestern HS 38 Tulip Grove ES 10
Oaklands ES 1 Tulip Grove New 10
Overlook ES 25 University Park ES 7
Oxon Hill ES 28 Valley View ES 26
Oxon Hill HS 40 Vansville ES 2
Oxon Hill MS 37 Waldon Woods ES 30
Paint Branch ES 4 Walker Mill MS 36
Panorama ES 25 Whitehall ES 10
Parkdale HS 38 William Beanes ES 24
Patuxent ES 23 William Paca ES 15
Perrywood ES 19 William W. Hall Academy 20
Phyllis E. Williams ES 16 William Wirt MS 34
Pointer Ridge ES 17 Woodmore ES 16
Port Towns ES 12 Woodridge ES 13
Potomac HS 40 Yorktown ES 10
Potomac Landing ES 32

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2 . 1 . 1
Bond Mill ES
Deerfield Run ES
James Harrison ES
Laurel ES
Montpelier ES
Oaklands ES
Scotchtown Hills ES
Planning
Area
Review
NO. 1

B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L AV E Y I N S P I R E . E M P O W E R . A D VA N C E .2 . 1 . 2

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2 . 1 . 3
INTRODUCTION
Planning Area One is located in the North Region and includes seven neighborhood elementary schools:
Bond Mill ES | Deerfield Run ES | James Harrison ES | Laurel ES
Montpelier ES | Oaklands ES | Scotchtown Hills ES
This Planning Area is bordered by Anne Arundel County to the east, Montgomery County to the west, and
the Patuxent River to the north. Routes US-1, I-95, and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway effectively
quadrisect the Planning Area. Neighborhoods in this Planning Area generally include Laurel, West Laurel,
and South Laurel. Planning Areas Two, Five, Nine, and 10 all share a border. Together, these schools
represent approximately 3,652 school seats and the projected enrollment for 2020, post-grade level
realignment is 3,414 students.
OBSERVATIONS
Based on analysis of the data provided by the district and the walkthrough assessments performed by the
Master Plan Support (MPS) project team, the following considerations should be included in the master
planning process:
Deerfield Run has the lowest number of students (12%) requiring school bus transportation. The
other schools have higher ridership rates.
James Harrison has a concentration of 10 CSEP and three CRI classrooms.
Scotchtown Hills is the only school to have received significant renovation in the past 20 years. The
average adjusted age of the seven schools is 40 years. The average adjusted age of elementary
schools in the North Region is 32 years.
Montpelier, James Harrison, and Oaklands schools have the most significant facility condition needs
with scores of seven, 10, and 10, respectively. Not including Scotchtown Hills, the average weighted
facility condition index for this Planning Area is 15, which is above the North Region’s elementary
school average of 13.
Bond Mill, Montpelier, and Laurel schools have the most significant educational adequacy problems,
scoring three, six, and 10, respectively. The average educational adequacy priority score for the
Planning Area is 15 which is the same as the North Region elementary school average of 15.
James Harrison, Montpelier, and Oaklands have the lowest priority scores, indicating these are
the schools with the highest level of need in this area. The average total overall priority score for
the Planning Area is 15, which is just above the North Region’s elementary school average of 14.

School Name Region Yr Blt Adj Age Non-Riders Riders
Overall
Priority
WFCI
Priority
EA
Priority
Bond Mill ES North 1968 46 34% 66% 18 23 13
Deerfield Run ES North 1975 39 88% 12% 15 14 16
James H arrison E orth 1969 5 7 3% 4 0 7
Laurel ES North 1974 40 21% 79% 20 25 15
Montpelier ES North 1968 40 45% 55% 10 7 13
Oaklands ES North 1964 50 49% 51% 13 10 15
Scotchtown Hills ES North 1995 19 11% 89% 18 18
Planning Area Averages: 1973 40 41% 59% 15 15 15
School Data
Student School Bus
Transportation Split
Descriptive Data
Capacity
School Name
As-Studied
SRC
Current
2020
Projected
Realigned
Current
Projected
(2020)
85% 100%
Bond Mill ES 456 538 559 118% 123% -171 -103
Deerfield Run ES 570 631 557 111% 98% -73 13
James Harrison ES 2 19 31 98% 1% 47
Laurel ES 499 537 581 108% 116% -157 -82
Montpelier ES 591 567 544 96% 92% -42 47
Oaklands ES 408 397 347 97% 85% 0 61
Scotchtown Hills ES 801 664 595 83% 74% 86 206
Totals: 3652 3653 3414 10 % 94% -310 238
Available Seats:
2020 Projected Enrollment vs.
Listed Target Utilization Rate
FTE Enrollment
Utilization:
Based on As-Studied
SRC
SCHOOL SIZE AND UTILIZATION
This area of schools is within the ideal utilization rate with a combined projected utilization rate of
94%. However, utilization ranges from 71% to 123% by school. Two schools have ideal utilization,
two are under-utilized, and two are over-utilized.
James Harrison has an as studied State-rated Capacity of 327, significantly below the minimum
small elementary school size of 411 students. Additionally, projected enrollments for both James
Harrison and Oaklands are below the minimum school size at 231 and 347, respectively.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2 . 1 . 5
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS – EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY REPORT
1 . 1
BOND MILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Date observed: February 9, 2015
Based on the educational adequacy assessment completed at Bond Mill Elementary School, the following
are the most important items that should be considered:
 The borderline exterior spaces.
 The borderline building configuration.
 The borderline furnishings in the capacity-driving spaces.
 The borderline acoustics in the capacity-driving spaces.
 The borderline room technology and supporting infrastructure in the shared spaces.
The school’s specific campus and individual space needs are categorized as deficient, poor, or
borderline, as shown below. Both assessments grade the school based on the educational specification
requirement in categories such as building organization, furnishings, light quality, air quality, technology
infrastructure, safety, and security.
The highest priorities within the assessment are:
Deficient:
None Observed
Poor:
None Observed
Borderline:
Exterior Spaces:
 The outdoor play fields lack equipment.
 The outdoor learning areas do not meet all of the educational specification
requirements; however, the school does have space to accommodate them.
Building Configuration:
 The school is not clustered into distinct academic communities; however, similar
grades are adjacent to one another.
 The school lacks the ability to separate after-hour spaces from the rest of the
building.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT

B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E . E M P OW E R . A D V A N C E .1 . 2
Furnishings (Capacity-Driving Spaces):
 Over half of the capacity-driving spaces lack individual student cubbies and most
rooms have limited sink cabinetry and shelving. Some rooms lack small group
tables (e.g., horseshoe- or kidney-shaped tables).
 Capacity-driving spaces lack tack strips and two marker board teaching walls;
some spaces have two chalk board teaching walls.
Acoustics (Capacity-Driving Spaces):
 Internal sources, including unit vents, create noise interference in capacity-
driving spaces.
 Many classrooms have moveable partitions between them that create external
noise interference.
Room Technology and Supporting Infrastructure (Shared Spaces):
 The shared resource rooms lack interactive white boards and audio-visual face
plates.
 The cafeteria lacks a large LCD screen.
 The media center lacks all required audio-visual equipment.
 All shared spaces lack an adequate number of power and data outlets.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Although the category of site circulation and accessibility earned a satisfactory score, there are limiting
conditions including the following:
 There is a single driveway to access the school and, therefore, no separation between vehicular
traffic, school buses, parking, drop-off areas, and pedestrian routes.
 The student kiss-and-ride areas lack stacking spaces.
 On-site parking is inadequate to accommodate the needs of the school and community.
The campus safety and security category earns a satisfactory score; however, there are still some areas
of concern, including the following:
 There is limited exterior lighting at the parking lots, walkways, entrances, and play areas.
 Not all exterior doors have appropriate hardware and, therefore, do not generally help prevent
unauthorized entry.
 The visual sightline between the office and the outdoor approach to the main entrance is limited.
The internal organization and ancillary spaces category for all individual spaces earns a satisfactory
score; however, there are some limiting conditions, including the following:
 The pre-kindergarten and kindergarten classrooms lack two sinks.
 Half of the capacity-driving spaces lack student cubbies by the door and most classrooms lack
doors between them to allow for potential teaming.
 A quarter of the capacity-driving spaces are missing the adjacent restroom required for pre-
kindergarten through third grade classrooms.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2 . 1 . 7
1 . 3
 Over half of the capacity-driving spaces are undersized as compared to the square footage
requirements. The media center is undersized and is, therefore, incapable of supporting
recommended arrangements and program activities.
Air quality was given a satisfactory rating for the individual spaces, but it should be noted that the
individual spaces lack temperature controls.
While the room technology and supporting infrastructure category was rated satisfactory in the capacity-
driving spaces, those spaces lack an adequate number of power and data outlets.
The following conditions were observed in the health suite:
 There is no sink with a hands-free gooseneck faucet or associated soap and paper towel
dispensers.
 The office is not separate from the rest of the health suite.
 The health suite lacks cabinetry, a mobile exam table, side tables, and has antiquated cubicle
curtains.
 The lighting is not adjustable.
INITIAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: LIMITED RENOVATION + ADDITION
Comprehensive update of MEP systems (exception for plumbing) and interior finishes, and full casework
and AV upgrades to the classrooms, media center, health suite and auditorium. Replacement of exterior
doors and windows. Classroom and gym addition with administrative space. Potential reconfiguration to
include restrooms for PreK-3 classrooms. Full site work to include changes to playground, lighting, and
driveway issue mitigation.
The initial project recommendation is based upon a review of the facility condition data and the
educational adequacy report. This recommendation establishes a baseline for the school but does not
take into account the impact of modifications to nearby schools and may be adjusted to support the
overall program based upon a comprehensive evaluation of the planning areas.

EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY SCORECARD
13
Section 1: Campus Assessment Score Level Priority Rating
Site Circulation & Accessibility 75 1 16 Satisfactory
Exterior Spaces 67 2 12 Borderline
Building Configuration 57 2 12 Borderline
Corridor & Common Space Configuration 83 4 19 Satisfactory
Technology & Supporting Infrastructure 80 2 17 Satisfactory
Safety & Security 82 1 16 Satisfactory
Section 2: Individual Space Assessment Score Level Priority
Rating
Category
Internal Organization and Ancillary Spaces 71 2 17 Satisfactory
Furnishings 69 2 12 Borderline
Lighting Quality* 100 2 22 Excellent
Acoustics* 66 4 14 Borderline
Air Quality* 86 1 16 Satisfactory
Room Technology & Supporting Infrastructure 76 4 19 Satisfactory
Internal Organization and Ancillary Spaces 2 Not Rated
Furnishings 2 Not Rated
Lighting Quality* 2 Not Rated
Acoustics* 2 Not Rated
Air Quality* 1 Not Rated
Room Technology & Supporting Infrastructure 4 Not Rated
Furnishings 70 2 17 Satisfactory
Lighting Quality* 88 2 17 Satisfactory
Acoustics* 84 4 19 Satisfactory
Room Technology & Supporting Infrastructure 50 2 12 Borderline
Section 3: Space Adequacy Score Level Priority Rating
A Capacity Driving Spaces 84 1 11 Borderline
B Specialty Classrooms 42 2 2 Deficient
C Shared Spaces 51 5 5 Deficient
D Support & Admin Spaces 69 5 10 Poor
Capacity Driving Spaces
15Average Priority: Campus Assessment
Bond Mill ES Overall Score:
Specialty Spaces
Average Priority : Space Adequacy 7
Shared Spaces
Average Priority: Individual Spaces 16
Key: Excellent Satisfactory Poor Deficient Not RatedBorderline

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2 . 1 . 9
SPACE ADEQUACY WORKSHEET
EdSpec
Capacity
Projected
Enroll. `20
Realigned
Ideal
School
Size
507 559 559
Quantity SF Quantity SF
ES,PK8
Capacity
MS, HS
Capacity
Quantity SF
CAPACITY DRIVER ROOMS 85%
Pre-Kindergarten 59 1175 3 3525 0 0 0 3 3525
Kindergarten 53 1175 4 4700 4 4376 82 0 324
1ST GRADE 41 950 4 3800 4 4624 112 0 -824
2ND GRADE 41 950 4 3800 4 4481 108 0 -681
3RD GRADE 41 950 3 2850 4 3575 87 -1 -725
4TH GRADE 39 900 3 2700 2 1857 47 1 843
5TH GRADE 39 900 3 2700 3 2750 70 0 -50
Special Education - Self Contained 90 900 2 1800 0 0 0 2 1800
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Generic Classroom 39 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 0 26 25875 21 21663 507 0 5 4212 84%
SPECIALITY CLASSROOMS
Art 1100 1 1100 0 0 1 1100
Music - General 1100 1 1100 1 918 0 182
Music - Instrumental 500 1 500 1 975 0 -475
Gymnasium/PE/Lockers 4500 1 4500 0 0 1 4500
STEM Lab/STEAM 1200 0 0 1 1107 -1 -1107
0 0 0
0 0 0
Subtotal 4 7200 3 3000 1 4200 42%
Cafetorium 2795 1 2795 1 2611 0 184
Reading/Learning/Circulation 2536 1 2536 1 1304 0 1232
Collaborative Learning Areas 1189 1 1189 0 0 1 1189
Speech/OT/PT 350 1 350 0 0 1 350
Resource Classroom 250 5 1250 3 1032 2 218
Stage 800 1 800 1 1106 0 -306
Community Use 3000 1 3000 0 0 1 3000
0 0 0
0 0 0
Support & Admin 14508 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 11 11920 6 6053 5 5867 51%
Administration & Building Support 14033 1 14033 37 9496 -36 4537
Health Suite 475 1 475 1 505 0 -30
Subtotal 14508 10001 0 4507 69%
Total 59503 40717 0 0 11 18786 68%
Elementary School
Bond Mill ES
Type
SHARED SPACES
SUPPORT & ADMIN
Required Spaces
Percent of
Ideal
DifferenceExisting Spaces
Room Use Type SF/Student
Classroom
Size

B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L AV E Y I N S P I R E . E M P O W E R . A D VA N C E .2.1.10
1 . 1
DEERFIELD RUN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Date observed: December 30, 2014
Based on the educational adequacy assessment completed at Deerfield Run Elementary School, the
following are the most important items that should be considered:
 The poor corridor and common space configuration.
 The poor or borderline furnishings in the specialty spaces, capacity-driving spaces and shared
spaces.
 The borderline site circulation and accessibility.
 The borderline internal organization and ancillary spaces for the capacity-driving spaces.
 The borderline lighting quality in the support, administrative, and shared spaces.
 The borderline room technology and supporting infrastructure.
Deficient:
None Observed
Poor:
Corridor and Common Space Configuration:
 The corridors lack natural light.
 The school lacks informal learning areas.
 There are limited drinking fountains throughout the corridors.
Furnishings (Specialty Spaces):
 The general music rooms lack marker boards and tackable wall surfaces, base
and wall cabinets.
 The general music rooms do not meet any of the loose furnishings requirements.
Borderline:
OVERALL ASSESSMENT

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.11
Site Circulation and Accessibility:
 Vehicular traffic, school buses, parking, and drop-off areas are not separated
from each other or from pedestrian routes.
 There is no stacking area at the student kiss-and-ride areas.
 There is no dedicated loading zone for students with physical disabilities near the
main entrance.
 The building does not appear to be universally accessible due to the steep incline
of the interior ramps.
 On-site parking is inadequate to accommodate the needs of the school and
community.
 The school lacks the ability to separate after-hour spaces from the rest of the
building.
 Generally, the grade levels are clustered in pods; however, the pre-kindergarten
and kindergarten classrooms are not.
 The media center is centralized but acoustically open to all the classroom
wings/pods.
Internal Organization and Ancillary Spaces (Capacity-Driving Spaces):
 While all capacity-driving spaces have at least one sink, a majority of sinks do
not have integrated bubblers.
 All third grade classrooms lack the adjacent restroom required for pre-
 None of the capacity-driving spaces have doors between classrooms to allow for
team teaching.
 Generally, the capacity-driving spaces are capable of supporting recommended
arrangements and program activities; however, many classrooms do not meet
the required square footages.
Furnishings (Capacity-Driving and Shared Spaces):
 Capacity-driving spaces are lacking tack strips, two marker board teaching walls,
wall shelving, manual projection screens and teacher work surfaces.
 The shared spaces are lacking marker boards, where required, and not all
spaces meet the requirements for tackable surfaces. Generally, the teaching
walls are chalk board.
 The stage lacks a piano and mobile risers.
 The cafeteria lacks a portable sound system.
 None of the shared resource rooms meet the loose furnishings requirements and
are inconsistently furnished.
Lighting Quality (Shared Spaces):
 The health suite does not have adjustable lighting.

1 . 3
 The shared resource rooms lack access to natural light and do not have
adjustable lighting.
Room Technology and Supporting Infrastructure (Capacity-Driving, Specialty, and
Shared Spaces):
 The individual spaces lack audio-visual faceplates.
 The shared resource rooms and specialty general music rooms lack interactive
white boards and adequate electrical power.
 The media center computer lab is lacking power and data outlets.
 The cafeteria is lacking a large LCD screen.
Although the campus safety and security category earns a satisfactory score, there are still some areas of
concern, including the following:
 Exterior lighting is lacking along the perimeter of the building and at the
entrances.
 Classrooms do not lock from the inside.
 Corridor bathrooms do not balance the need for privacy with the ability to
supervise.
 There is no clear visual access from the office to the main entrance and outdoor
approach.
The lighting quality category for the capacity-driving spaces received a satisfactory score; however, it
should be noted that none of the capacity-driving or specialty classrooms have access to natural light.
Another item of note is that the school recently completed a major renovation of its capacity-driving and
shared resource classrooms.
INITIAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: FULL RENOVATION + ADDITION
Facility condition data is driving the recommendation to upgrade all interior building systems. Most
educational adequacy issues are addressed by upgrading fixed furnishings, and adding door hardware
and replacing windows in all learning areas. A full renovation is recommended because of the extent of
additions needed to accommodate projected enrollment and to ensure the existing spaces are reused in
the most efficient manner possible. Site work to improve accessibility to the main entrance is also
needed.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.13
16
Site Circulation & Accessibility 57 1 11 Borderline
Exterior Spaces 73 2 17 Satisfactory
Corridor & Common Space Configuration 30 4 9 Poor
Rating
Category
Internal Organization and Ancillary Spaces 68 2 12 Borderline
Acoustics* 94 4 24 Excellent
Air Quality* 99 1 21 Excellent
Internal Organization and Ancillary Spaces 100 2 22 Excellent
Furnishings 42 2 7 Poor
Lighting Quality* 64 2 12 Borderline
B Specialty Classrooms 109 2 22 Excellent
C Shared Spaces 105 5 25 Excellent
D Support & Admin Spaces 83 5 15 Borderline
Deerfield Run ES Overall Score:
Specialty Spaces
Shared Spaces

EdSpec
Capacity
Projected
Enroll. `20
Realigned
Ideal
School
Size
516 557 559
ES,PK8
Capacity
MS, HS
Capacity
Quantity SF
Kindergarten 53 1175 4 4700 2 2011 38 2 2689
1ST GRADE 41 950 4 3800 4 3535 86 0 265
2ND GRADE 41 950 4 3800 4 3431 83 0 369
3RD GRADE 41 950 3 2850 4 3498 85 -1 -648
4TH GRADE 39 900 3 2700 0 0 0 3 2700
5TH GRADE 39 900 3 2700 0 0 0 3 2700
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Generic Classroom 39 900 0 0 10 8391 214 -10 -8391
Subtotal 0 26 25875 25 21465 516 0 1 4410 83%
Art 1100 1 1100 0 0 1 1100
Music - General 1100 1 1100 2 1819 -1 -719
Music - Instrumental 500 1 500 0 0 1 500
Gymnasium/PE/Lockers 4500 1 4500 1 6048 0 -1548
STEM Lab/STEAM 1200 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Subtotal 4 7200 3 7867 1 -667 109%
Cafetorium 2795 1 2795 1 3333 0 -538
Reading/Learning/Circulation 2536 1 2536 2 6805 -1 -4269
Speech/OT/PT 350 1 350 0 0 1 350
Resource Classroom 250 5 1250 6 2193 -1 -943
Stage 800 1 800 1 178 0 622
Community Use 3000 1 3000 0 0 1 3000
0 0 0
0 0 0
Support & Admin 14508 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 11 11920 10 12509 1 -589 105%
Health Suite 475 1 475 1 301 0 174
Subtotal 14508 12013 0 2495 83%
Total 59503 53854 0 0 3 5649 91%
Elementary School
Deerfield Run ES
Type
SHARED SPACES
SUPPORT & ADMIN
Required Spaces
Percent of
Ideal
Classroom
Size

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.15

JAMES HARRISON ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Date observed: January 26, 2015
Based on the educational adequacy assessment completed at James Harrison Elementary School, the
 The poor exterior spaces.
 The poor building configuration.
 The borderline corridor and common space configuration.
 The borderline furnishings.
The school’s specific campus and individual space needs are described as deficient, poor, or borderline,
as shown below. Both assessments grade the school based on the educational specification requirement
in categories such as building organization, furnishings, light quality, air quality, technology infrastructure,
safety, and security.
Deficient:
None Observed
Poor:
Exterior Spaces:
 The school lacks early childhood play equipment; there is only one play set for
the entire school.
 The school lacks sufficient play equipment; there is no equipment on the outdoor
fields.
 The school lacks outdoor learning areas, but there appears to be space to
accommodate some.
 The building lacks distinct academic communities.
 The spaces intended for after-hours community use, such as the cafeteria,
cannot be isolated from the rest of the building.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT


B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E . E M P OW E R . A D V A N C E . 1 . 2
Borderline:
 The school only has one driveway for all vehicles to access the site.
 The school lacks an adequate stacking area for kiss-and-ride vehicles.
 The school lacks sufficient parking to accommodate after-school or community
events.
 The school lacks informal learning areas and it appears there is no additional
space in the corridors and common space to accommodate any.
 The corridor and common spaces lack fixed furniture such as water filling
stations.
Furnishings (Capacity-Driving and Specialty Spaces):
 Most spaces have two teaching walls but they are equipped with chalkboards
instead of marker boards.
 Most spaces lack cubbies.
 Most spaces have limited base cabinets and shelving.
 Most spaces have built-in casework that extremely dated and not in good
condition.
 The gymnasium, the only specialty space, lacks bleachers and an operable
partition to allow for multiple classes or groups.
 The media center lacks the infrastructure to support 28 computer stations and a
built-in projector.
 The computer lab lacks the appropriate electrical infrastructure to power 28
computer stations.
 The stage and cafeteria lack sufficient power and data outlets.
 The cafeteria lacks an LCD projection screen device (or similar device).
 The cafeteria lacks data ports.
 The stage lacks microphone jacks and a speaker system.
In general, the internal organization for the all spaces category earned a satisfactory rating; however,
there are some limiting conditions, including:
 There are no doors between classrooms to allow for team teaching.
 Shared spaces, like the media center and stage, are lacking their ancillary spaces and
adjacencies.
 The health suite lacks a cubicle track and a cubicle curtain.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.17

INITIAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: LIMITED RENOVATION
Facility conditions drive the recommendation to upgrade interior systems, finishes, interior fittings, exterior
windows, and interior door hardware. A building reconfiguration will allow for the introduction of open
learning areas, a dedicated art room, and additional capacity-driving classrooms. Demolition of the
surplus square footage is recommended because of the projected enrollment of this school.

17
Exterior Spaces 40 2 7 Poor
Building Configuration 40 2 7 Poor
Corridor & Common Space Configuration 57 4 14 Borderline
Rating
Category
Room Technology & Supporting Infrastructure 100 4 24 Excellent
A Capacity Driving Spaces 248 1 21 Excellent
C Shared Spaces 95 5 20 Satisfactory
D Support & Admin Spaces 112 5 25 Excellent
James Harrison E Overall Score:
Specialty Spaces
Shared Spaces

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.19
EdSpec
Capacity
Projected
Enroll. `20
Realigned
Ideal
School
Size
387 231 202
ES,PK8
Capacity
MS, HS
Capacity
Quantity SF
Pre-Kindergarten 59 1175 1 1175 2 2249 38 -1 -1074
Kindergarten 53 1175 2 2350 4 4677 88 -2 -2327
1ST GRADE 41 950 2 1900 3 3471 84 -1 -1571
2ND GRADE 41 950 1 950 0 0 0 1 950
3RD GRADE 41 950 1 950 0 0 0 1 950
4TH GRADE 39 900 1 900 0 0 0 1 900
5TH GRADE 39 900 1 900 0 0 0 1 900
Special Education - Self Contained 90 900 0 0 13 13302 148 -13 -13302
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Generic Classroom 39 900 1 900 1 1147 29 0 -247
Subtotal 23 10 10025 23 24846 387 0 -13 -14821 248%
Art 1000 1 1000 0 0 1 1000
Music - General 1100 0 0 1 999 -1 -999
STEM Lab/STEAM 1200 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Subtotal 2 3200 2 6276 0 -3076 196%
Cafetorium 1010 1 1010 1 2617 0 -1607
Reading/Learning/Circulation 1010 1 1010 1 1745 0 -735
Speech/OT/PT 300 0 0 0 0 0 0
Resource Classroom 250 3 750 3 1033 0 -283
Stage 500 1 500 1 587 0 -87
Community Use 3000 1 3000 0 0 1 3000
0 0 0
0 0 0
Support & Admin 7635 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 7 6270 6 5982 1 288 95%
Administration & Building Support 7210 1 7210 32 8302 -31 -1092
Health Suite 425 1 425 1 248 0 177
Subtotal 7635 8550 0 -915 112%
Total 27130 45654 0 0 -12 -18524 168%
Elementary School
James H. Harrison ES
Type
SHARED SPACES
SUPPORT & ADMIN
Required Spaces
Percent of
Ideal
Classroom
Size


LAUREL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Based on the educational adequacy assessment completed at Laurel Elementary School, the following
are the most important items that should be considered:
 The borderline technology and supporting infrastructure.
 The borderline internal organization and ancillary spaces.
 The borderline lighting quality.
Deficient:
None Observed
Poor:
None Observed
Borderline:
Exterior Spaces:
 The school lacks sufficient play equipment.
 The school lacks an adequate outdoor learning area.
 The school’s play fields are not consistently flat.
Technology and Supporting Infrastructure:
 The data provided by Prince George’s County Public Schools indicates that the
technology and supporting infrastructure at Laurel Elementary is borderline.
Internal Organization and Ancillary Spaces (Specialty Spaces):
 The gymnasium lacks ancillary spaces, such as storage.
 They gymnasium area is used as a storage space for cafeteria tables and other
equipment.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.21

 The music room lacks storage space.
Furnishings (Capacity-Driving and Shared Spaces):
 Most shared spaces have only one teaching wall or none at all.
 Most shared spaces have a chalkboard instead of a marker board.
 A majority of resource rooms lack computer stations and teacher wardrobes.
 All capacity-driving spaces have only one teaching wall.
 Most capacity-driving spaces lack adequate base cabinets and shelving.
 The media center has only shelving and individual tables.
 The media center lacks the space to accommodate teaching walls and
marker/chalkboards.
 The stage lacks mobile risers.
Lighting Quality (Specialty and Shared Spaces):
 Twelve of the thirteen spaces have either no windows or windows that are
inadequate because of frosted glass or window size.
 The gymnasium and media center are poorly lit.
 The resource rooms lack interactive whiteboards.
 A majority of shared spaces lack an audio-visual face plate.
 All spaces have an insufficient quantity of power and data outlets to support their
program activities; power strips are being used throughout.
 The media center lacks a microphone jack and an LCD screen, or similar device.
In general, the building configuration for all spaces category earned a satisfactory rating; however, there
are some limiting conditions, including:
 The media center is not an enclosed space and, therefore, is open to the adjacent corridors,
causing distracting acoustical issues.
INITIAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: SYSTEM REPLACEMENT +
ADDITION
Facility conditions data is driving a recommendation to upgrade the fittings, equipment, and technology
throughout the school excepting the technology infrastructure in the capacity-driving spaces. Additionally,
an upgrade of the interior door hardware, electrical service, and fire protection system is recommended.
An addition to the building will allow the introduction of a dedicated art room, capacity-driving spaces,
administrative space, and collaborative learning areas.

15
Building Configuration 73 2 17 Satisfactory
Technology & Supporting Infrastructure 68 2 12 Borderline
Rating
Category
Room Technology & Supporting Infrastructure 91 4 24 Excellent
B Specialty Classrooms 92 2 17 Satisfactory
C Shared Spaces 61 5 10 Poor
Laurel ES Overall Score:
Specialty Spaces
Shared Spaces

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.23
EdSpec
Capacity
Projected
Enroll. `20
Realigned
Ideal
School
Size
513 581 559
ES,PK8
Capacity
MS, HS
Capacity
Quantity SF
Kindergarten 53 1175 4 4700 4 4288 80 0 412
1ST GRADE 41 950 4 3800 4 3894 94 0 -94
2ND GRADE 41 950 4 3800 4 3872 94 0 -72
3RD GRADE 41 950 3 2850 3 2800 68 0 50
4TH GRADE 39 900 3 2700 3 2783 71 0 -83
5TH GRADE 39 900 3 2700 3 2519 64 0 181
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Generic Classroom 39 900 1 900 1 995 25 0 -95
Subtotal 23 27 26775 23 22107 513 0 4 4668 83%
Art 1100 1 1100 0 0 1 1100
Music - General 1100 1 1100 1 835 0 265
STEM Lab/STEAM 1200 0 0 1 775 -1 -775
0 0 0
0 0 0
Subtotal 4 7200 3 6589 1 611 92%
Cafetorium 2795 1 2795 1 3006 0 -211
Speech/OT/PT 350 1 350 0 0 1 350
Stage 800 1 800 1 436 0 364
Community Use 3000 1 3000 0 0 1 3000
0 0 0
0 0 0
Support & Admin 14508 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 11 11920 11 7249 0 4671 61%
Health Suite 475 1 475 0 0 1 475
Subtotal 14508 9599 0 4909 66%
Total 60403 45544 0 0 5 14859 75%
Elementary School
Laurel ES
Type
SHARED SPACES
SUPPORT & ADMIN
Required Spaces
Percent of
Ideal
Classroom
Size


MONTPELIER ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Based on the educational adequacy assessment completed at Montpelier Elementary School, the
 The poor and borderline room technology and supporting infrastructure.
 The borderline internal organization and ancillary spaces.
 The borderline acoustics.
Deficient:
None Observed
Poor:
Exterior Spaces:
 The school lacks an adequate amount of play equipment.
 The school lacks an adequate amount of play sets.
 The early childhood play set lacks adequate fencing.
 The equipment on the fields is old and rusted.
 The school lacks outdoor learning areas, but there appears to be space to
accommodate some.
 All spaces lack projectors.
 Shared spaces lack an audio-visual face plate.
 All spaces lack a sufficient quantity of power and data outlets to support the
room’s program activities.
 The media center lacks the infrastructure to support 28 computer stations.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.25

 The stage and cafeteria lack sufficient power and data outlets.
 The cafeteria lacks an LCD projection screen device (or similar device).
 The cafeteria lacks data ports.
Borderline:
 The building lacks distinct academic communities.
 The spaces intended for after-hours community use, such as the cafeteria,
cannot be isolated from the rest of the building.
Internal Organization and Ancillary Spaces (Capacity-Driving and Specialty
Spaces):
 A majority of the capacity-driving spaces lack bubblers, doors between
classrooms, and cubbies.
 Many capacity-driving and specialty spaces are undersized.
 All specialty spaces, the art room, and the music rooms, lack storage space.
 Only one of the three music rooms is adjacent to the stage.
 Most spaces lack marker boards.
 Most spaces lack cubbies.
 Most spaces have inadequate base cabinets and shelving.
 Many capacity-driving spaces are lacking tables for small-group activities.
Acoustics (Capacity-Driving Spaces):
 Internal sources, specifically dated HVAC units, create noise interference in all
capacity-driving spaces.
 Operable partitions exist between most capacity-driving spaces and allow noise
transmittance between spaces.
Room Technology and Supporting Infrastructure (Capacity-Driving Spaces):
 All spaces lack projectors.
 All capacity-driving spaces lack an audio-visual face plate.
 All spaces lack a sufficient quantity of power and data outlets to support the
room’s program activities.
In general, the internal organization for the shared spaces category earned a satisfactory rating; however,
there are some limiting conditions, including:
 Shared spaces, like the media center and stage, lack their ancillary spaces and adjacencies.
 The two computer labs are not adjacent to the media center.


INITIAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: FULL RENOVATION + ADDITION
The facility condition data for Montpelier Elementary is driving the recommendation for a full renovation in
order to address significant deficiencies in the building systems. An addition is also required to provide
the building with an instrumental music room, gymnasium, collaborative learning areas, community use
space, additional administrative space, and right-sizing the cafeteria and media center.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.27
14
Rating
Category
Room Technology & Supporting Infrastructure 47 2 7 Poor
B Specialty Classrooms 35 2 2 Deficient
Montpelier ES Overall Score:
Specialty Spaces
Shared Spaces

EdSpec
Capacity
Projected
Enroll. `20
Realigned
Ideal
School
Size
591 544 559
ES,PK8
Capacity
MS, HS
Capacity
Quantity SF
Kindergarten 53 1175 4 4700 4 4365 82 0 335
1ST GRADE 41 950 4 3800 4 4188 101 0 -388
2ND GRADE 41 950 4 3800 5 5062 123 -1 -1262
3RD GRADE 41 950 3 2850 2 1608 39 1 1242
4TH GRADE 39 900 3 2700 4 3299 84 -1 -599
5TH GRADE 39 900 3 2700 3 2381 61 0 319
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Generic Classroom 39 900 -1 -900 4 3181 81 -5 -4081
Subtotal -23 25 24975 27 25240 591 0 -2 -265 101%
Art 1100 1 1100 1 788 0 312
Music - General 1100 1 1100 2 1722 -1 -622
STEM Lab/STEAM 1200 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Subtotal 4 7200 3 2510 1 4690 35%
Cafetorium 2795 1 2795 1 2248 0 547
Speech/OT/PT 350 1 350 0 0 1 350
Stage 800 1 800 1 758 0 42
Community Use 3000 1 3000 0 0 1 3000
0 0 0
0 0 0
Support & Admin 14508 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 11 11920 6 6037 5 5883 51%
Health Suite 475 1 475 0 0 1 475
Subtotal 14508 9790 0 4718 67%
Total 58603 43577 0 0 4 15026 74%
Elementary School
Montpelier ES
Type
SHARED SPACES
SUPPORT & ADMIN
Required Spaces
Percent of
Ideal
Classroom
Size

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.29
1 . 1
OAKLANDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Based on the educational adequacy assessment completed at Oaklands Elementary School, the
 The poor building configuration.
 The poor or borderline room technology and supporting infrastructure.
 The borderline corridor and common space configuration.
Deficient:
None Observed
Poor:
Exterior Spaces:
 There is no protected play area and play equipment for early childhood students
(pre-K and K).
 There is limited outdoor play and play field equipment.
 There are no outdoor learning areas; however, the school does have space to
accommodate them.
 The school lacks distinct academic communities and the ability to separate after-
hours spaces from the rest of the building.
 There are limited public restrooms and shared student restrooms.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Room Technology and Supporting Infrastructure (Capacity-Driving and Shared
Spaces):
 Over half the capacity-driving and shared spaces lack interactive whiteboards or
have a mobile interactive whiteboard without a connected projector.
 None of the capacity-driving and shared spaces have audio-visual face plates.
 All individual spaces, including the computer lab, lack an adequate number of
power and data outlets.
 The cafeteria lacks a large LCD screen.
Borderline:
 There is no separation between vehicular traffic, school buses, parking, drop-off
areas, and pedestrian routes.
 There is no stacking at the student kiss-and-ride areas.
 On-site parking is inadequate to accommodate the needs of the school and
community.
 There are limited tackable surfaces in the hallways.
 The school lacks informal learning areas.
 Capacity-driving spaces lack individual student cubbies and wall cabinets at the
sinks.
 Capacity-driving spaces lack tack strips and two marker board teaching walls
although some spaces have two chalk board teaching walls.
 The stage lacks wood flooring and while stage lighting is present, not all of it
functions.
The campus safety and security category earns a satisfactory score; however, there are still some areas
of concern, including the following:
 There is limited exterior lighting at the parking lots, walkways, entrances, and play areas.
 Classrooms do not lock from the inside.
 Corridor bathrooms do not balance the need for privacy with the ability to supervise.
 Not all exterior doors have appropriate hardware and therefore do not generally help prevent
unauthorized entry.
 There is no welcoming single point of entry.
The internal organization and ancillary spaces category for all individual spaces category earns a
satisfactory score or better; however, there are some limiting conditions, including the following:
 The pre-kindergarten and kindergarten classrooms lack two sinks.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.31
1 . 3
 None of the capacity-driving spaces have student cubbies by the door or doors between them to
allow for potential teaming.
 The pre-kindergarten and kindergarten classrooms do not have storage closets.
 Some of the capacity-driving spaces are missing the adjacent restroom required for pre-
 The kindergarten classrooms are undersized and are therefore incapable of supporting
recommended arrangements and program activities.
The air quality category was given a satisfactory rating or better for the individual spaces but it should be
noted that the individual spaces lack temperature controls and classrooms are often not set at
comfortable room temperatures.
The following conditions were observed in the health suite:
 The health suite is undersized when compared to the educational specification and is therefore
incapable of supporting recommended arrangements and program activities.
 The cot area has only a single cot and lacks cubical curtains.
The renovation includes replacement of the majority of building systems and the exterior windows and
doors. An addition is required to provide a gymnasium. Site work includes reconfiguration of existing
elements and addition of outdoor learning areas.

15
Building Configuration 30 2 7 Poor
Rating
Category
B Specialty Classrooms 62 2 7 Poor
C Shared Spaces 113 5 25 Excellent
Oaklands ES Overall Score:
Specialty Spaces
Shared Spaces

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.33
EdSpec
Capacity
Projected
Enroll. `20
Realigned
Ideal
School
Size
579 347 314
ES,PK8
Capacity
MS, HS
Capacity
Quantity SF
Kindergarten 53 1175 2 2350 3 3974 74 -1 -1624
1ST GRADE 41 950 2 1900 3 3816 92 -1 -1916
2ND GRADE 41 950 2 1900 3 3793 92 -1 -1893
3RD GRADE 41 950 2 1900 2 2526 61 0 -626
4TH GRADE 39 900 2 1800 2 2548 65 0 -748
5TH GRADE 39 900 2 1800 2 2680 68 0 -880
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Subtotal 23 15 14900 19 24816 579 0 -4 -9916 167%
Art 1000 1 1000 0 0 1 1000
Music - General 1100 1 1100 1 1247 0 -147
STEM Lab/STEAM 1200 0 0 1 1402 -1 -1402
0 0 0
0 0 0
Subtotal 3 4300 2 2649 1 1651 62%
Cafetorium 1570 1 1570 1 3311 0 -1741
Reading/Learning/Circulation 1570 1 1570 1 1855 0 -285
Speech/OT/PT 200 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stage 600 1 600 1 1435 0 -835
Community Use 3000 1 3000 0 0 1 3000
0 0 0
0 0 0
Support & Admin 9515 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 8 7740 5 8712 3 -972 113%
Health Suite 425 1 425 1 253 0 172
Subtotal 9515 7858 0 1657 83%
Total 36455 44035 0 0 0 -7580 121%
Elementary School
Oaklands ES
Type
SHARED SPACES
SUPPORT & ADMIN
Required Spaces
Percent of
Ideal
Classroom
Size


SCOTCHTOWN HILLS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Based on the educational adequacy assessment completed at Scotchtown Hills Elementary School, the
Deficient:
None Observed
Poor:
None Observed
Borderline:
Exterior Spaces:
 There is a limited amount of play equipment on the play fields and the basketball
courts.
 The school lacks outdoor learning areas, but there is space to accommodate
some.
 The building lacks distinct academic communities, but similar grade levels are
adjacent to each other.
 The spaces intended for after-hours community use, such as the cafeteria and
gymnasium, cannot be isolated from the rest of the building.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.35

 Most spaces have the required quantity of teaching walls, but they are equipped
with chalkboards instead of marker boards.
 Most capacity-driving spaces lack cubbies and have a limited amount of base
cabinets.
 The gymnasium lacks operable partitions and bleachers.
 The art room lack drying racks, computer stations, and a student storage area.
 Five of the seven resource rooms lack interactive whiteboards.
 A majority of shared spaces lack an audio-visual face plate.
 The cafeteria lacks an LCD screen or similar device.
 All shared spaces have an insufficient quantity of power and data outlets to
support their program activities; power strips are used throughout.
 Both computer labs lack the electrical infrastructure to support 28 computer
stations.
In general, the internal organization and ancillary spaces for all spaces categories earned a satisfactory
rating; however, there are some limiting conditions, including:
 The pre-kindergarten and kindergarten spaces lack a secondary sink.
 All capacity-driving spaces lack cubbies and a door between classrooms to accommodate team
teaching.
INITIAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: NO RECOMMENDATION

18
Site Circulation & Accessibility 92 1 21 Excellent
Safety & Security 92 1 21 Excellent
Rating
Category
C Shared Spaces 89 5 15 Borderline
Scotchtown Hills ES Overall Score:
Specialty Spaces
Shared Spaces

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2.1.37
EdSpec
Capacity
Projected
Enroll. `20
Realigned
Ideal
School
Size
747 595 559
ES,PK8
Capacity
MS, HS
Capacity
Quantity SF
Kindergarten 53 1175 4 4700 4 4983 93 0 -283
1ST GRADE 41 950 4 3800 4 3789 92 0 11
2ND GRADE 41 950 4 3800 4 3784 92 0 16
3RD GRADE 41 950 3 2850 4 3746 91 -1 -896
4TH GRADE 39 900 3 2700 3 2992 76 0 -292
5TH GRADE 39 900 3 2700 3 2846 73 0 -146
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Subtotal 46 28 27675 32 32009 747 0 -4 -4334 116%
Art 1100 1 1100 1 1567 0 -467
Music - General 1100 1 1100 2 1883 -1 -783
STEM Lab/STEAM 1200 0 0 3 3141 -3 -3141
0 0 0
0 0 0
Subtotal 4 7200 7 9679 -3 -2479 134%
Cafetorium 2795 1 2795 1 3080 0 -285
Reading/Learning/Circulation 2536 1 2536 2 2491 -1 45
Speech/OT/PT 350 1 350 0 0 1 350
Stage 800 1 800 1 706 0 94
Community Use 3000 1 3000 0 0 1 3000
0 0 0
0 0 0
Support & Admin 14508 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 11 11920 14 10605 -3 1315 89%
Health Suite 475 1 475 1 386 0 89
Subtotal 14508 12969 0 1539 89%
Total 61303 65262 0 0 -10 -3959 106%
Elementary School
Scotchtown Hills ES
Type
SHARED SPACES
SUPPORT & ADMIN
Required Spaces
Percent of
Ideal
Classroom
Size

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2 . 2 . 1
Planning
Area
Review
NO. 2
Beltsville Academy
Calverton ES
Vansville ES
James E. Duckworth Regional
Frances R. Fuchs ECC

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2 . 2 . 3
INTRODUCTION
OBSERVATIONS
Based on analysis of the data provided by the district and the walkthrough assessments performed by the
Master Plan Support (MPS) project team, the following considerations should be included in the master
planning process:
Calverton ES has the lowest number of students (73%) requiring school bus transportation. All
schools in this area have a high ridership rate.

Planning Area Two is located in the North Region and includes two neighborhood elementary schools,
one PK-8 school, and one regional school:
This Planning Area borders Montgomery County to the west with the Capital Beltway to the south. Routes
I-95 and US-1 effectively trisect the Planning Area. Neighborhoods in this Planning Area generally include
Calverton and Beltsville; Planning Areas One, Three, Four, and Five all share a border. Together, these
neighborhood schools represent approximately 2,309 school seats and the projected enrollment for 2020,
post-grade level realignment, is 2,662 students.
Beltsville academy has a concentration of one non-program SPED and five autism classrooms.
Vansville is the only school to have received significant renovations in the past 10 years. The
average adjusted age of the three neighborhood schools is 34 years; the average adjusted
age of elementary schools in the North Region is 32 years.
Beltsville Academy has the most significant facility condition need with a score of five. Not including
Vansville, the average weighted facility condition index for schools in this Planning Area is seven,
which is below the average of 13 for elementary schools in the North Region, indicating more
significant facility condition problems.
Calverton has the most significant educational adequacy priority score of 13. Not including
Vansville, the average educational adequacy priority score for the Planning Area is 14, which is
below the average of 15 for elementary schools in the North Region.
Beltsville Academy has the lowest priority score, 10, indicating the school has the highest level of
need in this area. The average total overall priority score for the Planning Area is 11, which is below
the average of 14 for elementary schools in the North Region.
Beltsville Academy | Calverton ES | Vansville ES
Frances R. Fuchs E.C.C. | James E. Duckworth Regional

SCHOOL SIZE AND UTILIZATION

Vansville is the only neighborhood school in this planning area projected to have an ideal
utilization rate. Generally, this grouping of schools has large disparities in projected utilization and
overall this group is projected to be over-utilized at a rate of 119%. Two schools are projected to
be over-utilized and one is projected to be ideally-utilized.
School Name Region Yr Blt Adj Age Non-Riders Riders
Overall
Priority
WFCI
Priority
EA
Priority
School Data
Student School Bus
Transportation Split
Descriptive Data
Capacity
School Name
As-Studied
SRC
Current
2020
Projected
Realigned
Current
Projected
(2020)
85% 100%
Totals: 361 358 252 93% 69% 55 109
Available Seats:
2020 Projected Enrollment vs.
Listed Target Utilization Rate
FTE Enrollment
Utilization:
Based on As-Studied
SRC
Beltsville Academy 838 1019 1070 122% 128% -358 -232
Calverton ES 566 822 798 145% 141% -317 -232
Vansville ES 905 820 794 91% 88% -25 111
Totals: 2309 2661 2662 119% 119% -700 -353
James E Duckworth Regional 150 88 97 59% 65% 31 53
Frances R Fuchs ECC 211 270 155 128% 73% 24 56
Beltsville Academy North 1961 53 19% 81% 10 5 14
Calverton ES North 1964 45 27% 73% 11 8 13
Vansville ES North 2008 6 20% 80%
James E Duckworth Regional Regional 1978 36 4% 96% 9 4 13
Frances R Fuchs ECC Regional 1965 31 5% 95% 13 10 15

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2 . 2 . 5

BELTSVILLE ACADEMY
OVERALL CONDITION
Based on the educational adequacy assessment completed at Beltsville Academy, the following are the
most important items that should be considered:
 The poor air quality in the shared spaces.
 The poor and borderline acoustics.
 The borderline site circulation and accessibility, exterior spaces, corridor and common space
configuration, and safety and security.
 The borderline furnishings, air quality, and room technology and supporting infrastructure in the
capacity-driving spaces.
 The borderline internal organization and ancillary spaces, furnishings, acoustics, and air quality in
the specialty spaces.
 The borderline furnishings and acoustics in the shared spaces.
The school’s specific campus and individual space needs are described as borderline, satisfactory, or
excellent, as shown below. Both assessments grade the school based on the educational specification
Deficient:
None Observed
Poor:
Acoustics (Capacity-Driving, Specialty, and Shared Spaces):
 A majority of spaces have noisy unit ventilation systems.
 Many classrooms have window air conditioning units.
 At least four classrooms are subdivided with a partial floor-to-ceiling wall.
 Noise bleed between classrooms, vertically and horizontally, was pervasive
throughout the school.
 Classrooms 200 and 201 have noise disturbance from the nearby parking lot and
bus loop.
Air Quality (Shared Spaces):
 A majority of spaces have unit ventilation systems that provide limited control of
fresh air supply.
 A limited number of rooms have passive plenum air transfers.
 Humidity and temperature fluctuations are pervasive throughout the building.


Borderline:
Site Circulation and Accessibility (Campus Assessment):
 The bus loop, drop-off loop, and parking all use the same access lane.
 Pedestrian routes into the school are not separate from the traffic thoroughfare.
 The site lacks a dedicated handicap parking or loading zone for students with
disabilities near the front of the school.
 Handicap-dedicated parking spaces are located in areas that make access to the
school more difficult or require travel through high volume traffic areas.
 The building lacks equitable access via ramps or elevators for students in
wheelchairs.
Exterior Spaces (Campus Assessment):
 Play fields are in poor condition and do not include all required spaces.
 The school lacks outdoor learning areas.
Corridor and Common Space Configuration (Campus Assessment):
 The school lacks the required built-in display cases and seating.
Safety and Security (Campus Assessment):
 Most classrooms do not lock from the inside.
 Clear visual access is not provided from the main office to the outdoor approach.
 The school lacks a welcome center at the main entrance.
 Multiple exterior doors were propped open and not secured.
 Corridor bathroom doors do not allow for supervision of students.
Internal Organization and Ancillary Spaces (Specialty Spaces):
 The STEM lab lacks sinks.
 The STEM lab lacks the adequate square footage and a flexible layout for large
and small group instruction.
 All spaces lack the required quantity of whiteboards.
 Nearly half the classrooms lack the appropriate fixed furniture.
Air Quality (Capacity-Driving and Specialty Spaces):
 A majority of the spaces have unit ventilation systems that provide limited control
of their classroom fresh air supply.
 Humidity and temperature fluctuations are pervasive throughout the building;
library books are damaged from the humidity.
Room Technology & Supporting Infrastructure (Capacity-Driving Spaces):
 Most spaces lack an audio-visual face plate.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2 . 2 . 7

 All these spaces lack sufficient quantity of power and data outlets. Power strips
are present which can overburden an electrical circuit.
The health suite is the only administration room observed by the assessment team. A few notable space
needs are described below for this independent space:
 The health suite lacks control of the room temperature.
The internal organization and ancillary spaces and lighting quality for the capacity-driving spaces earned
a satisfactory rating or better; however, there are some limiting conditions, including:
 Half the spaces requiring a sink do not have one.
 Some sinks are mounted too high for the age of the student.
 A majority of the spaces requiring a bathroom do not have one.
 Many of the core capacity spaces were over-crowded and generally unable to support all
recommended program activities.
 A majority of the classrooms lack sufficient power outlets.
Based upon a review of the facility condition data the majority of interior systems require replacement in
addition to the replacement of kitchen equipment, and exterior windows and doors. Additionally, the
educational adequacy data indicates the need for building reconfigurations and additions to address
inadequate classroom sizes, improper adjacencies, and the lack of administrative and support spaces. A
limited renovation and addition is needed to accommodate required program space. While there is
reasonable amount of space on site to accommodate this addition, swing space will be required.

14
Building Configuration 73 2 17 Satisfactory
Safety & Security 65 1 11 Borderline
Rating
Category
Acoustics* 37 4 9 Poor
Air Quality* 50 1 11 Borderline
Air Quality* 57 1 11 Borderline
Air Quality* 43 1 6 Poor
A Capacity Driving Spaces 73 1 6 Poor
D Support & Admin Spaces 95 5 20 Satisfactory
Beltsville Academy Overall Score:
Specialty Spaces
Shared Spaces

J U N E 2 0 1 5 2 . 2 . 9
EdSpec
Capacity
Projected
Enroll. `20
Realigned
Ideal
School
Size
754 1070 1019
ES,PK8
Capacity
MS, HS
Capacity
Quantity SF
Kindergarten 53 1175 5 5875 5 4565 85 0 1310
1ST GRADE 41 950 5 4750 4 4072 99 1 678
2ND GRADE 41 950 5 4750 4 4499 109 1 251
3RD GRADE 41 950 5 4750 4 4118 100 1 632
4TH GRADE 39 900 4 3600 4 3213 82 0 387
5TH GRADE 39 900 4 3600 0 0 0 4 3600
Middle School Core Academic 45 900 11 9900 9 8028 178 2 1872
Middle School Science 60 1200 3 3600 2 2012 34 1 1588
Special Needs Classroom 90 900 4 3600 6 4785 53 -2 -1185
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Generic Classroom 39 900 2 1800 0 0 0 2 1800
Subtotal 46 51 49750 39 36108 754 0 12 13642 73%
Art Lab 1300 1 1300 1 1262 0 38
Music - General 1100 1 1100 2 5156 -1 -4056
Music - Instrumental 1100 1 1100 1 1111 0 -11
STEM Lab/STEAM - technology 1600 1 1600 1 776 0 824
STEM Lab/STEAM - wet 1200 1 1200 0 0 1 1200
Music - Dual Purpose 1000 1 1000 0 0 1 1000
Gymnasium/Lockers 7500 1 7500 3 8162 -2 -662
Subtotal 7 14800 8 16467 -1 -1667 111%
Media Center 4861 1 4861 1 2728 0 2133
Student Dining/Multipurpose 5095 1 5095 0 0 1 5095
Resource Classroom (SPED) 250 4 1000 0 0 4 1000
Resource Classroom (OTHER) 250 3 750 6 1874 -3 -1124
Speech/OT/PT 400 1 400 0 0 1 400
Stage 1000 1 1000 1 1160 0 -160
Community Use 3000 1 3000 0 0 1 3000
0 0 0
0 0 0
Subtotal 13 17715 8 5762 5 11953 33%
Health Suite 775 1 775 0 0 1 775
Subtotal 19268 18303 0 965 95%
Total 101533 76640 0 0 16 24893 75%
Pre-K thru 8
Beltsville Academy
Type
SHARED SPACES
SUPPORT & ADMIN
Required Spaces
Percent of
Ideal
Classroom
Size


CALVERTON ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Date observed: December 30, 2014
OVERALL CONDITION
Based on the educational adequacy assessment completed at Calverton Elementary School, the
 The poor site circulation and accessibility.
 The poor room technology and supporting infrastructure.
Deficient:
None Observed
Poor:
 The site does not effectively separate vehicular traffic, school buses, parking, or
drop-off areas. There is one main parking lot and the driveway around the
parking lot serves as the school bus and vehicle loop.
 The single school bus and vehicle loop limits the stacking area for vehicles and
could lead to congestion on the main road.
 There is not a safe pedestrian pathway to access the building from the front of
the school.
 This two-story building is not equipped with an elevator to transport people with
physical disabilities between the floors.
 There is limited on-site parking and it may be difficult to accommodate a large
school or community function.
 All of the resource rooms do not have an interactive white board.
 All shared spaces lack audio-visual face plates, clocks, and an ample amount of power
and data outlets.

Volume 2 - June Final (2)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Volume 2 - June Final (2)

Similar to Volume 2 - June Final (2) (20)

Volume 2 - June Final (2)