Leaving Children Behind:
The Underfunding of D.C. Public Schools Building
Repair and Capital Budget Needs
A Parents United
for the D.C. Public Schools
Civic Leader Advisory Committee Report
July 2003
PREFACE
The following
report was prepared for Parents United for the D.C. Public Schools and
a special Advisory Committee of Civic Leaders by the Washington Lawyers’
Committee for Civil Rights and volunteers at the firm of Sidley, Austin,
Brown and Wood LLP.
Parents
United is a citywide parent organization established in 1980 to support
quality public education in the District of Columbia.
Over the years it has issued a series of reports on a range of
school finance and school reform issues.
Its most recent report, D.C.
Public School Funding: Myth v. Reality, was released in February
2003. The Washington Lawyers’ Committee serves as
counsel to Parents United. Ronald
Flagg, Patrick Linehan, and Rebecca Riley,
of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, are the primary authors of this
report. Rod Boggs
of the Washington Lawyers Committee and Iris Toyer
of Parents United took the photographs contained in the report.
Parents
United would like to express its deep appreciation to following individuals
who served as members of its Civic Leader Advisory Committee:
Maudine
R. Cooper---President of the Greater Washington Urban League. Ms. Cooper has served in this position since
1990. Previously she served in a number of senior positions in the D.C.
Government, including a term as Director of the D.C. Office
of Human Rights and the Office of Minority
Business Opportunities. She has
also served on numerous governmental commissions and task forces.
Ronald
S. Flagg---Mr. Flagg is a partner in the law firm of Sidley Austin Brown
& Wood LLP. He is a longtime District resident and a leader in community
service. Between 1991 and 1994
he served as Executive Director of the Mayor’s Management Advisory Committee. He is the parent of three children attending
the D.C. public schools.
James
O. Gibson---Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Social Policy. Mr. Gibson has a long history of involvement
in issues of urban policy, civil rights and community development. He previously served as: a founding Director
and President of the D.C. Agenda, Director of the Equal Opportunity
Program at the Rockefeller Foundation and President of the Eugene and
Agnes E. Meyer Foundation.
James
W. Jones---A Director of the Hildebrandt International, a management
consulting firm serving the legal industry.
Prior to joining Hildebrandt, Mr. Jones was managing partner
at the law firm of Arnold & Porter. He currently serves as chair
of the Pro Bono Institute and Chair of the Board of the Eugene and Agnes
E. Meyer Foundation. Richard
W. Snowdon, III---Partner in the law firm of Trainum, Snowdon &
Deane. Over the past twenty years, Mr. Snowdon has
served in a series of position focusing on key policy issues in the
District of Columbia. These have included membership on:
the Committee on Strategies to Reduce Chronic Poverty; the D.C.
Advisory, Local Initiative Support Committee [LISC]; the Mayor’s Blue
Ribbon Committee on Promotion of Arts and Economic Development; and
Board of Directors of For Love of Children [FLOC].
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This Report
analyzes the current status of the District’s efforts to modernize its
crumbling school buildings. Five
years ago, following an assessment of each of the District’s school
facilities, it was widely recognized that the physical condition of
the District’s schools was disastrous.
After decades of failing either to build new schools or even
to make the minimal repairs necessary to maintain the existing buildings,
students in our Nation’s Capital attended public schools which impaired
their education and, at times, threatened their health and safety.
To its credit, the D.C. Public School System (“DCPS”) faced up
to these longstanding problems in a reasonable and rational way – in
consultation with experts and community members, it developed a Facility
Master Plan to modernize our schools over a 10-15 year period.
Consistent with the Master Plan, DCPS has completed modernization
of four schools and is nearing completion of the modernization of six
more schools.
Now, however,
just two years into implementation of the Master Plan, funding cuts
threaten to halt this modernization plan.
The FY 2004 Budget and Financial Plan sent by the Mayor and Council
to Congress provides far less funding than is needed to maintain, much
less modernize, our city’s schools.
Most ominously, the Proposed Budget for FY 2007 proposes a paltry
$21 million in capital funds for DCPS and calls for no capital funding
whatsoever for FY 2008 and 2009. The Proposed Budget also calls for a reduction
in DCPS’s maintenance budget for FY 2004 from $44 million to $17 million.
The
dire need to fix the District’s school facilities remains. We do not need a blue ribbon panel or a legislative
study to address this critical problem. We already have a carefully constructed Master
Plan to modernize our schools over the next 10-15 years, and a maintenance
budget request from DCPS for FY 2004 that would maintain them in a minimally
sufficient way in the meantime. It
is now simply a matter for our lawmakers to fund these plans.
HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE: YEARS OF NEGLECT
The
physical deterioration of DC’s public schools is by no means a new issue.
The average DC public school building is now over 65 years old. In 1989, Parents United undertook a comprehensive
investigation and analysis of information about the physical state of
the D.C. public schools. Finding
severe deterioration and disrepair in the school buildings, it waged a
multifaceted campaign that resulted in a one-time contribution of $12
million in funding from Congress to repair D.C.’s deteriorating public
schools. An average of $18 million
was spent annually on school facilities between 1990 and 1996. This represented less than $300 per student,
and was one of the lowest rates of any school district in the country. Most of these funds were being used for emergency
repairs due to aging infrastructure. “There
was not enough money spent to stem the tide of continued deterioration,
let alone address the decay that had already occurred.” Moreover, during this period there was no strategic
plan to end the downward slide in District school facilities; the District
had last adopted a master plan for school facilities in 1967.
In March 1992, Parents United instituted
a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court alleging that
the District was in repeated violation of the D.C. Fire Code. After a bench trial, the Court’s June 10, 1994
Order found thousands of life-threatening violations including: defective
fire doors, exposed wiring, breached ceilings, defective alarm systems,
and serious electrical problems. In
total, the court found 5,695 fire code violations throughout the District’s
public schools, the vast majority of which the Court deemed life-threatening. The Court ordered the D.C. Government to fix
these violations and ordered the D.C. Fire Department to inspect all
DCPS schools periodically and to file reports detailing its findings. The result was temporary and sporadic fixes,
individual schools and sometimes the entire system shut down, but ultimately
an out of court settlement that promised DCPS a consistent share of
the city’s capital funding.
In 1998, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted an assessment of each of the District’s
operating public school facilities. At
that point, there had been no significant capital improvements since 1980
and no new school had been built during that period.
In 1998, there were more than 20,000 open work orders, and seventy-percent
of the schools were deemed in poor physical condition, meaning that most
systems and components had exceeded their useful life expectancy and the
building needed to be modernized or replaced.
In the DCPS’s own words, the state of the public school facilities
“had reached an all-time low:”
Roofs
were leaking, windows needed to be replaced, boilers were failing, plumbing,
wiring and heating systems were old and unreliable.
Many of the floors, walls, and ceilings were in poor condition,
and people often avoided the use of the bathrooms altogether. There were very few schools in the District
of Columbia with working science laboratories.
THE
DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS FACILITY MASTER PLAN
Facing
up to these conditions, in the FY 1999 budget, the District approved
for the first time in a generation capital projects that would modernize
or replace school buildings. Over the course of the next two years DCPS developed
a Facility Master Plan (“Master Plan”), which was approved by the
Board of Education in early 2001.
The Master Plan endeavors to modernize,
not just renovate, the District’s
public schools. Renovations would merely bring the schools to their original state
when new, which for DCPS buildings means 1890, 1920 or 1960. Schools built during these earlier eras did
not provide access for children with disabilities, space for community
meetings or activities, and many lacked libraries, cafeterias and
space for physical education, art and music.
None of the schools constructed in these earlier times was
built to use the technology of the late 20th century, much
less the 21st century. In order to develop the Master Plan, DCPS, with
the professional support of a nationally recognized designer of schools,
developed new standards for state-of-the-art schools for the District
based on current educational practice, research and technology. DCPS has also engaged well-known national and
local architects to design individual schools.
Under
the Master Plan, modernization of the District’s school buildings
is to take place in successive groups or tiers of 10 schools over
a 10- to 15-year period. One
elementary school from each ward was selected for modernization in
the first group. Criteria for
selection in the first group included size, condition, crowding, age,
and geographical balance. The
initial group of elementary schools selected for modernization included
Barnard, Cleveland, Key, Miner, Noyes, Oyster, Patterson, Randle Highlands and Thomson.
In addition, Kelly Miller Middle School is also in the initial
modernization group The second
group of ten schools scheduled for modernization is currently in the
“design phase” or “ “bidding phase.” In the design phase, the entire school site
is redesigned to meet current educational program requirements. All ten schools in this phase are slated to
be in construction over the next twelve months.
The third group of ten schools scheduled for modernization
is currently in the “feasibility study phase.” During the feasibility study phase, a detailed
analysis of each site is developed, including the creation of options
for resolving the challenges within constraints of budget, historic
preservation, and other factors. Budgets
are developed using a uniform budgeting formula.
While
the modernization program outlined above serves as the cornerstone
of the Master Plan, because not all schools can be modernized simultaneously,
capital improvements must move forward on three other tracks as well:
The
Component Replacement Program. The component replacement program
will replace failed building systems, including roofs, boilers, windows,
and other discrete building systems or components. As new buildings
are built and schools are modernized, this program will be replaced
by a Lifecycle Replacement Program.
The
Small Capital Project Program. This “small cap” program will make
necessary health, safety, and quality of life improvements to schools
waiting their turn for modernization.
Mandates. Mandates are projects required for compliance
with federal legislation. These
include the asbestos program, ADA accessibility improvements, and
the removal of underground storage tanks.
One of the
root causes for the deplorable state of the DCPS building inventory
is a chronic underfunding of maintenance and operations.
In response, the DCPS is developing a comprehensive maintenance
plan to enable accurate budgeting for future fiscal years and to shift
from an emergency mode of operations into predictive and preventative
maintenance. While the small cap program will continue to
be funded in the capital budget request, a substantial share of deferred
work is not capital-eligible and will need to be funded from the maintenance
portion of DCPS’s annual operating budget.
Appendix
I to this Report shows on a school-by-school basis the status of facility
improvements in DC Public Schools as of 2003.
Modernization of Key, Miner, Oyster and Randle Highlands has
now been completed, and modernization of the other six schools in
this first group is on schedule for completion by 2004.
The results of DCPS’ initial modernization efforts are impressive:
schools that are safe, sound, educationally appropriate, architecturally
inspiring and efficient to operate. For example, the photographs on the following
pages show the results of modernization at Miner Elementary School. The photographs show a state-of-the-art school
facility of which any public school system could be proud. The results of completed modernization efforts
at other District schools are similarly impressive. Schools that have been rebuilt have seen an
influx of students. Within
months of reopening all are at full capacity.
Waiting lists are an emerging trend.
Miner Elementary School
Miner Elementary School
FULLY FUNDING THE DC PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITY
MASTER PLAN
DCPS estimates
that more than $2 billion will be required to address the DCPS facility
needs that have been identified. Nearly every other urban school district in
the country faces a similar challenge.
However, unlike the District, most urban school districts throughout
the United States are able to fund their school renovation and modernization
through a combination of state and local funds.
Because of the District’s unique governance structure, this financing
arrangement is not available. The
magnitude of the $2 billion financial commitment required by the Master
Plan can be put into perspective by reviewing the pattern of DCPS capital
expenditures between FY 1990 and FY 2003 set forth in the chart below. As the chart shows, an average of only $18 million
was provided annually for school facilities between 1990 and 1996 –
with no capital funds at all provided
in FY 1996. At $18 million
of annual capital expenditure, it would take over 100 years to “modernize”
the District’s public schools (not even accounting for inflation and
also ignoring the fact that, by year 100, the schools modernized originally
would then again be in disrepair). In
1997, capital expenditures increased to $92.2 million, thanks to $60
million derived from federal sources. In the FY 1999 budget, capital projects to modernize
or replace school buildings were approved for the first time in 20 years
and, from FY 2001 through FY 2003 capital expenditures for DCPS have
exceeded $100 million annually.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MASTER PLAN HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN AND BUDGET
CUTS WOULD CONDEMN THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS TO CONTINUE TO ATTEND DECREPIT
SCHOOLS
As described
above, the increased levels of capital funding in the last few years have
permitted DCPS to complete or nearly complete modernization of 10 schools.
Although this is a significant achievement, it is only the beginning
of the effort and financial commitment required to overcome decades of
disinvestment and neglect in District school facilities. As depicted in the chart below, less than 5%
of total DCPS students attend schools where modernization is completed
or nearly so, while over 95% of DCPS students attend schools awaiting
modernization.
It must be
emphasized that most of the schools that have not yet been modernized
are in decrepit condition and should be modernized immediately.
In particular, ten schools are currently in the design stages and
are slated for ground-breaking ceremonies this year, with another ten
entering the initial design phase. The
Master Plan, in grouping schools as described above, simply gives recognition
to the fact that not all of the schools in dire need of modernization
can, as a practical matter, be modernized or replaced at the same time. However, this phased approach to modernizing
schools over a 10-15 year period requires that funding be provided for
the entire period; the premature cutting of funds for this program will
condemn thousands of students to remain in badly deteriorating and often
unsanitary and unsafe school buildings. To
illustrate these points, the following pages contain photographs from
four schools that are not even within the first three groups of 30 schools
slated for modernization -- Stanton Elementary School, Raymond Elementary
School, Coolidge Senior High School and Roosevelt Senior High School.
These photographs illustrate the types of problems that exist
in many of the District’s school buildings. These examples are only a small indication of
the disrepair that continues to plague an overwhelming majority of D.C.
public school buildings. Most
schools are still in need of significant repairs to bathrooms, doors,
windows, roofs, and heating and cooling systems.
Structural hazards continue to threaten student safety.
The prevalence of these substandard learning conditions signals
that, despite the good start in modernization that DCPS has made in
recent years, the current physical state of DCPS schools continues to
present an educational crisis.
Coolidge Senior
High School
Coolidge Senior
High School
Stanton Elementary
School
Stanton Elementary
School
Raymond Elementary
School
Raymond Elementary
School
Roosevelt Senior
High School
Roosevelt Senior
High School
THE PROPOSED BUDGET JEOPARDIZES SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
The foregoing
pictures permit only one conclusion: schools such as Raymond, Stanton,
Coolidge and Roosevelt, and the dozens of other DC public schools in a
similar state of physical deterioration must be modernized or replaced
as soon as possible -- precisely what is called for by the DCPS Master
Plan. Full funding for the
Plan – that is, the funding necessary to modernize the District’s
schools – requires over $200 million in capital funds for DCPS annually
for the next six years and beyond. While
actual capital expenditures for DCPS in
FY 2001 and FY 2002 were not at this level (in FY 2003 capital expenditures
reached $222 million), they at least have been sufficient to permit DCPS
to complete or nearly complete modernization of 10 schools and move an
additional 20 into the design/bidding and feasibility study phases.
Unfortunately,
the District government’s proposed FY 2004 Budget and Financial Plan
(hereafter “Proposed Budget”) now pending before Congress provides far
less funding than is needed to rebuild the city’s schools.
The Proposed Budget includes capital budgets for DCPS for a six-year
period, FY 2004 to FY 2009. As
the table below indicates, the Proposed Budget for each year falls well
below the amounts requested by DCPS as necessary to implement the Master
Plan. Most ominously, the Proposed Budget for FY 2007
proposes a paltry $21 million and calls for no capital funding whatsoever for FY 2008 and 2009.
MAYOR’S
PROPOSED DCPS CAPITAL BUDGET FY04-FY09 (Dollars are in millions)
| |
FY04 |
FY05 |
FY06 |
FY07 |
FY08 |
FY09 |
| DCPS
Request |
$313 |
$401 |
$372 |
$294 |
$314 |
$320 |
| Mayor’s
Proposed Budget |
$168 |
$173 |
$149 |
$21 |
$0 |
$0 |
| Difference
(shortfall): |
($145) |
($228) |
($223) |
($273) |
($314) |
($320) |
Source: Mayor’s FY2004 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan,
2004-2009 Capital Appendices.
The shortfalls
between the DCPS requests and the Proposed Budget amounts for FY 2004-FY
2006 and the virtual elimination of capital funding for DCPS in subsequent
years severely impair the modernization of DC public schools that is so
desperately required. Although the Proposed Budget funds the next
two rounds of modernization projects (but only these two rounds), it fails
to fund essential health and safety work, including asbestos abatement,
compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, and critical heating,
ventilation and air conditioning projects.
Moreover, the Proposed Budget’s de minimis funding for FY 2007
and elimination of a DCPS capital budget for 2008 and FY 2009 precludes
even a ratcheting down of the modernization program’s current rate of
ten schools per year. Indeed, with
the drastically reduced capital funding under the Proposed Budget, DCPS
is now forced to consider abandoning the modernization program altogether
and returning to the piecemeal projects of the past to attempt to ensure
that its aging school houses can continue to operate in compliance with
health and safety codes. Given
that the average D.C. public school is over 65 years old, with many schools
built more than a century ago, this “band-aid” approach will condemn District
children to continued dilapidated schools and end DCPS’s current progress
toward the high-quality educational space envisioned by the adoption of
the Master Plan. To
make matters worse, in addition to the substantial reductions in the
proposed six-year capital budget, the Proposed Budget also calls for
a reduction in DCPS’s maintenance budget for FY 2004 from $44 million
to $17 million. This portion
of the DCPS operating budget serves as the source of funding for the
performance of day-to-day maintenance in the District’s schools, as
well as for the performance of its most urgent school building repairs,
such as fire damage, asbestos abatement, and critical heating and ventilation
problems. Left with less than one-half of the funding
it requested as necessary to these functions, DCPS will likely have
to eliminate more than half of the most necessary anticipated school
building maintenance for FY 2004. This
significant funding shortfall impairs DCPS’s ability to respond rapidly
to threats to our children’s health and safety and will likely eliminate
DCPS’s ability to respond to less dire facility problems, thus continuing
the downward slide of our school buildings.
CONCLUSION: OUR CHILDREN DESERVE BETTER
DCPS has responded
to the horrendous conditions of District school buildings by developing
a Facilities Master Plan and beginning its implementation.
Proposed funding cuts now threaten this Plan and will condemn tens
of thousands of District students to dilapidated schools for another generation.
As the Master Plan itself concluded in 2001:
No
child deserves to be in a classroom that doesn’t have adequate electricity
for computers, or lighting to read their assignments, poor indoor air
quality, or inadequate space to partake in typical educational activities.
Children shouldn’t have to suffer discomfort due to excessive heat or
cold, or to use a restroom that has broken fixtures with no running
water. Our students deserve to be housed in buildings that are bright
and inviting, in good condition and appropriate for the educational
needs of today’s curriculum.
The vision
embodied in the Master Plan is not unreasonable, much less extravagant.
It is a vision simply of a clean and inviting physical learning
environment. It is what the District’s children deserve.
We must not fail to carry out that Plan.
APPENDIX
|
![[Link to Equal Employment Opportunity Project]](/images/eeo.gif){kind=small}
![[Link to Fair Housing Project]](/images/fh.gif){kind=small}
![[Link to Public Accomodations Project]](/images/pa.gif){kind=small}
![[Link to Disability Rights Project]](/images/dr.gif){kind=small}
![[Link to DC Prisoners' Rights Project]](/images/dc_prison.gif){kind=small}
![[Link to Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project]](/images/irr_new.gif){kind=small}
![[Link to Derechos de los Inmigrantes y Refugiados]](/images/irr_sp.gif){kind=small}
![[Link to Public Education Project]](/images/pe_new.gif){kind=small}
![[Link to Special Projects]](/images/sp_new.gif){kind=small}
![[Link to History]](/images/history.gif){kind=small}
![[Link to How You Can Help]](/images/help.gif){kind=small}