Educational Facilities Master Plan

PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FY Educational Facilities Master Plan www.pgcps.org

Prince George's County Board of Education Verjeana M. Jacobs, Esq. Chair Donna Hathaway Beck Vice Chair Henry P. Armwood, Jr. Carolyn M. Boston Edward Burroughs, III Patricia Eubanks Peggy Higgins, LCSW-C Rosalind A. Johnson Amber P. Waller Jonathan Harris, II Student Member William R. Hite, Jr., Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools and Secretary/Treasurer Educational Facilities Master Plan Update Team Bonita Coleman-Potter, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent of Schools Yale Stenzler, Ed.D. YES Consulting, LLC Tiffany Williams Jennings Planner Coordinator, M-NCPPC, Prince George's County Planning Department Duane Arbogast, Ed.D. Chief Academic Officer Carl Belcher Director, Maintenance Department Elizabeth Davis ADA Compliance Officer Sheila Gray, Ph.D. Director, Strategic Planning and Grants Development Johndel Jones-Brown Director, Pupil Accounting and School Boundaries Joan Shorter Director, Food and Nutrition Services Paul L. Taylor, Jr., AIA Director, Capital Programs Marsha D. Washington Secretary, Environmental Safety Office Eric Walker Safety Officer, Environmental Safety Office Loretta White Charter and Contract Schools Office i

Prince George s County Public Schools Educational Facilities Master Plan, FY Table of Contents Section 1: Goals, Standards, and Guidelines A. Organizational Patterns... 1 B. Staffing Ratios... 1 C. Transportation... 9 D. Food Service... 11 E. Information Technology... 13 F. Cooperative Arrangements and Co-Locations... 14 G. Districting and Redistricting Policies and Procedures... 16 H. School Closing Procedures... 22 I. Consolidated Schools... 22 J. Processes and Considerations for Site Selection and Approval... 26 K. State Rated Capacity... 27 Section 2: Educational Plans and Programs Impacting Facility Planning A. Bridge to Excellence Master Plan... 41 B. Elementary Schools... 42 C. Middle Schools... 43 D. High Schools... 43 E. Portfolio Schools... 45 F. Career and Technology Education... 45 G. Special Education... 46 H. English Speakers of Other Languages... 47 I. Title I Schools... 47 J. Charter Schools... 47 K. No Child Left Behind... 47 L. Schools in Improvement... 48 M. High School Enrollment and Graduation Rates... 48 N. Specific Program Needs... 48 Section 3: Other Plans and Studies Impacting Facility Planning A. Comprehensive Maintenance Plan... 51 B. State Facility Adequacy Study (31 standards)... 52 C. Emergency Preparedness... 54 D. Safety and Security... 54 E. Asbestos Management Plans... 55 F. Lead Paint... 55 G. Lead in Water... 55 ii

Section 4: Community Analysis A. Prince George s County Outlook 2005-2040... 57 B. Prince George s County Approved General Plan... 63 C. Water/Sewer Planning Process... 68 D. 2009 Approved Countywide Master Plan of Transportation... 71 E. APF and Public Schools... 73 F. Priority Funding Areas... 75 G. Neighborhood/Community Analysis... 77 H. School Planning and the Approved General Plan... 85 Section 5: Facility Inventory and Evaluation A. Basic Data and Current and Projected Usage... 87 B. Method Utilized to Evaluate Physical Condition... 87 C. Assessment of the Physical Condition of PGCPS Facilities... 87 D. Identification of Type of Neighborhood/Community... 88 E. BRAC Schools... 89 F. List of Former Public Schools Still Utilized by PGCPS... 89 G. Temporary/Relocatable Classrooms... 90 H. Site Bank... 92 Section 6: Demographic Data A. Overview... 133 B. Historic Public School Enrollment Trends... 133 C. Non-Public School Enrollments... 136 D. Projected Public School Enrollment... 136 E. School-by-School Public School Enrollment... 140 Section 7: Facility Needs Analysis A. Overview... 347 B. Forward Funded Projects... 348 C. Preliminary Design Phase Projects... 348 D. Summary of Needs and Requirements... 349 E. Long Range Needs... 349 Section 8: Non-discrimination Statement... 355 Section 9: Verification Letters A. Maryland Department of Planning... 356 B. County Department of Planning... 359 Index: School Boundary Area Maps A. Elementary Schools B. Middle Schools C. High Schools iii

Goals, Standards, and Guidelines Organizational Patterns Prince George's County Public Schools (PGCPS) is organized into four areas inclusive of elementary and middle schools and a High School Consortium. The system has 182 elementary, middle and high schools and 19 specialized instructional facilities including five alternative schools, and five charter schools. School Category Number Description Elementary Schools 98 Grade configuration PreK-6 Elementary Schools 29 Grade configuration PreK-5 Elementary Schools 3 Grade configuration K-6 Elementary Schools 3 Grade configuration of K-5 PreK-8 7 Grade configuration PreK -8 K-8 4 Grade configuration K -8 Middle Schools 9 Grade configuration 7-8 Middle Schools 15 Grade configuration 6-7-8 High Schools 23 Grade configuration 9-12, 9-10 Alternative Schools 5 Classroom settings for success Early Childhood Programs 3 Grade configuration PreK and PreK-3 Regional Schools 4 Special needs students in K-8, 8-12, or K-12 classroom settings Instructional Facilities 2 Specializing in Science and Technology Education and Environmental Education Charter Schools 5 EXCEL Academy, Imagine-Foundations, Imagine- Lincoln, Possibility Prep, and Turning Point Academy Public Charter Schools Total 201 Staffing Ratios PGCPS continues its commitment to maintaining lower class sizes throughout the grade levels in all schools. However, the staffing formula for the - school year shows an increase in selected grades due to budget constraints. Elementary School Staffing Formula K-8 Staffing Formula Middle School Staffing Formula High School Staffing Formula Kindergarten 22 to 1 Grade 1-25 to 1 average Grade 2 25 to 1 average Grade 3 27 to 1 average Grade 4 28 to 1 average Grade 5 28 to 1 average Grade 6 28 to 1 average Kindergarten to grade 8: 22 to 1 All grades: 22 to 1 Grades 9-10: 28:1 Specific proposed positions, pending Board of Education approval, per grade level are provided on the following charts. 1

Position Elementary Formula K 8 Formula Middle School Formula High School Formula Principal 1.0 per school 1.0 per school 1.0 per school 1.0 per school Assistant Principal Guidance Counselor 1.0 per school with projected enrollment of 350 or more. (All ES Assistant Principals will be reclassified to 10 Months in SY 11 12) 0.5 per school enrollment of 350 or less; 1.0 per school enrollment of 351 or more 2.0 per school with projected enrollment of 999 or less. 3.0 per school with projected enrollment of 1,000 or more. 2.0 per school with projected enrollment of less than 999. 3.0 per school with projected enrollment of 1,000 or more. 1.0 per school per 250 students. 1.0 per school per 250 students. Media Specialist Enrollment : Enrollment : Enrollment : 1.0 per school 0 249.10 Media 0 249.10 Media 0 249.10 Media 250 600.20 Media 250 600.20 Media 250 600.20 Media 600 1,000.50 Media 600 1,000.50 Media 600 1,000.50 Media 1,001 or more 1.0 Media 1,001 or more 1.0 Media 1,001 or more 1.0 Media Reading Specialist 1.0 per school 1.0 per school 1.0 per school None allocated Testing Coordinator None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school Classroom Teacher (apply formula to individual grades at all levels) 2.0 per school with projected enrollment of 900 or less. 3.0 per school with projected enrollment of 901 to 1,199 or less. 4.0 per school with projected enrollment of 1,200 1,799. 5.0 per school with projected enrollment of 1,800 2,399. 6.0 per school with projected enrollment of 2,400 or more. 1.0 per school per 350 students. Kindergarten 22 to 1 22 to 1 average 22 to 1 average Class average 28 to 1 Grade 1 25 to 1 average Grade 2 25 to 1 average Grade 3 27 to 1 average Grade 4 28 to 1 average Grade 5 28 to 1 average Grade 6 28 to 1 average Data Coach None allocated None allocated None allocated None allocated In School Suspension None allocated 1.0 per school 1.0 per school 1.0 per school PARAPROFESSIONAL Teacher Coordinator None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.5 per school added to Classroom Teacher allocation 2

Position Elementary Formula K 8 Formula Middle School Formula High School Formula Activity Coordinator None allocated None allocated None allocated None allocated Scheduler None allocated None allocated None allocated 0.5 per school Physical Education and Vocal Music Number of Classes (Formula Only) Exclude CSEP and Title One Classes 0.10 FTE authorized for every 2 classes round up on odd number of classes Part of Elective Class Offerings Part of Elective Class Offerings Advanced Placement Teachers None allocated None allocated None allocated 2.0 per school TAG Coordinator 0.5 Coordinator @ schools designated TAG TAG Teachers 1.0 Foreign Language Teacher and 0.5 Fine Arts Teacher at schools designated TAG Foreign Language Immersion Coordinator 1.0 Coordinator at schools designated Language Immersion 1.0 Coordinator @ schools designated TAG 1.0 Foreign Language Teacher @ schools designated TAG 1.0 Coordinator @ schools designated TAG 1.0 Foreign Language Teacher @ schools designated TAG 1.0 Coordinator No middle schools designated as Language Immersion Part of Elective Class Offerings No high schools designated as TAG No high schools designated as TAG 0.5 per school designated Foreign Language Immersion Teachers 2.5 Reading/Language Arts teachers at schools designated Language Immersion 2.5 Reading/Language Arts Teachers No middle schools designated as Language Immersion 2.0 per school designated Montessori Coordinator Montessori Teachers Montessori Paraprofessionals Creative and Performing Arts Coordinator Creative and Performing Arts Teachers.5 Coordinator @ Judith Hoyer Montessori Pre K to 4 1 Montessori Pre K Teacher based on enrollment not to exceed class size of 25 1.0 for each Pre K and K Montessori Teacher allocated No elementary schools designated as Creative and Performing Arts No elementary schools designated as Creative and Performing Arts 1.0 Coordinator No middle schools designated as Montessori 1 Montessori Pre K Teacher based on enrollment not to exceed class size of 25 1.0 for each Pre K and K Montessori Teacher allocated No middle schools designated as Montessori No middle schools designated as Montessori No high schools designated as Montessori No high schools designated as Montessori No high schools designated as Montessori 1.0 Coordinator 1.0 Coordinator No high schools designated as Creative and Performing Arts 1.0 Classroom Teacher per 120 students in Grades 1 8. 1.0 Classroom Teacher per 120 students in Creative and Performing Arts Program No high schools designated as Creative and Performing Arts Visual and Performing Arts Coordinator None allocated None allocated None allocated 0.5 per school designated Visual and Performing Arts Guidance Counselor None allocated None allocated None allocated 0.5 per school designated 3

Position Elementary Formula K 8 Formula Middle School Formula High School Formula Visual and Performing Arts Teachers None allocated None allocated None allocated 2.0 Art Teachers per school designated 2.0 Dance Teachers per school designated 2.0 Theater Teachers per school designated 1.0 Instrumental Music 1.0 Vocal Music Teacher per school designated 10.0 Classroom Teachers Biotechnology Coordinator None allocated None allocated None allocated 0.5 per school designated Biotechnology Teacher None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school designated Science Teacher None allocated None allocated None allocated 0.5 per school designated Biotechnology Biomedical Coordinator None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school designated Biomedical Biomedical Teacher None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school designated Biomedical International Baccalaureate Coordinator None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school designated 1.0 per school designated International Baccalaureate Guidance None allocated None allocated None allocated 0.5 per school designated Counselor International Baccalaureate Teachers None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school designated 3.0 per school designated Science and Technology Assistant None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school designated Principal Science and Technology Coordinator None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school designated Science and Technology Guidance None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school designated Counselor Science and Technology Computer Apps None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school designated Teacher Athletic Director None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school Career and Technical Education Assistant None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school designated Principal Career and Technical Education None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 at Bladensburg HS Coordinator Career and Technical Educator Teachers None allocated None allocated None allocated Special allocation designated by Career and Technology not to exceed 50 positions Small School Adjustment None allocated None allocated None allocated 2.0 per school with projected enrollment less than 1,300 4

Position Elementary Formula K 8 Formula Middle School Formula High School Formula H.S.A. Bridge None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 per school 0.5 at Tall Oaks VHS 0.5 at Croom VHS JROTC None allocated None allocated None allocated Reduce SY 10 11 staffing levels from 82 by 26 FTE 56 FTE authorized in SY 11 12 Project Lead the Way None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 @ Charles Flowers HS 1.0 @ DuVal HS 2.0 @ Northwestern HS SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM Classroom Teacher None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 FTE @ Fairmont Heights HS IT READ 180 Teachers None allocated None allocated None allocated ` Pre K Teachers (1/2 day program in SY 11 12) Pre K Paraprofessionals (1/2 day program in SY 11 12) 20 to 1 at schools where space is available 1 for each classroom teacher allocated 1 for each classroom teacher allocated 1.0 FTE to support Global Studies at designated HS (4 sites TBD) 1.0 @ Crossland HS 1.0 @ DuVal HS 1.0 @ Oxon Hill HS 1.0 @ Potomac HS 1.0 @ Suitland HS 20 to 1 None allocated None allocated None allocated None allocated Secretary II 1.0 per school 1.0 per school 1.0 per school 1.0 per school Secretary I 1.0 per school enrollment 0 799 None allocated None allocated 2.0 per enrollment 0 2,200; 1.5 per school enrollment 800 or more 3.0 per enrollment 2,201 2,600 School Accounting Secretary None allocated 1.0 per school 1.0 per school 1.0 per school Instructional Media Aide 10 positions Allocated, where possible, to schools where Media Specialist position is vacant. Only allocated to schools with 2 buildings: 1.0 Accokeek Academy Allocated, where possible, to schools where Media Specialist position is vacant. 4.0 per enrollment 2,601 or more Only allocated to schools with 2 buildings: 1.0 Bowie HS Annex 5

Position Elementary Formula K 8 Formula Middle School Formula High School Formula School Guidance Secretary None allocated None allocated None allocated School Business Accounting Technician None allocated None allocated None allocated 1.0 per enrollment 0 1,800; 2.0 per enrollment 1,801 or more 3.0 total positions available for allocation at 3 largest HS s in FY 11. Bowie HS, Dr. Wise HS, Eleanor Roosevelt HS, Originally piloted at 6 largest HS s. 6

Alternative School Staffing Allocations Goals, Standards, and Guidelines Alternative School Annapolis Road Academy Croom Vocational High Edgar A. Poe Alternative* *Based on FY 2010 staffing levels Green Valley Academy Staffing Allocation 1.0 Principal 1.0 Guidance Counselor 1.0 Media Specialist 1.0 Testing Coordinator 14.0 Classroom teachers (no Career and Technical Ed teacher allocation) 1.0 In School Suspension teacher 1.0 Secretary II 1.0 Secretary I 1.0 Principal 1.0 Guidance Counselor 1.0 Media Specialist 1.0 Testing Coordinator 14.0 Classroom teachers (no Career and Technical Ed teacher allocation) 1.0 In School Suspension teacher 1.0 Secretary II 0.5 Secretary I 1.0 Principal 1.0 Guidance Counselor 1.0 Reading Specialist 8.0 Classroom teachers 1.0 Instructional Media Aide 1.0 Secretary II 1.0 Principal 1.0 Guidance Counselor 1.0 Media Specialist 1.0 Testing Coordinator 14.0 Classroom teachers (no Career and Technical Ed teacher allocation) 1.0 In School Suspension teacher 1.0 Secretary II 1.0 Secretary I 7

Section 1 Alternative School Staffing Allocations Alternative School Tall Oaks Vocational High Staffing Allocation 1.0 Principal 1.0 Guidance Counselor 1.0 Media Specialist 1.0 Testing Coordinator 14.0 Classroom teachers (no Career and Technical Ed teacher allocation) 1.0 In School Suspension teacher 1.0 Secretary II 0.5 Secretary I 8

Goals, Standards, and Guidelines Transportation PGCPS Department of Transportation supports educational programs by providing safe, reliable and efficient bus transportation to eligible riders. The Department transports approximately 93,000 students each day to and from school. The fleet is comprised of 1,386 buses of which 1,159 buses run 5,761 routes twice a day. The Department of Transportation adheres to policies and regulations from the following agencies: Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Bus drivers attend a series of safety trainings required by COMAR throughout the year and cover required topics including: Sexual Harassment, Homelessness Training, Child Abuse Recognition, Driver Improvement Program, Alcohol Drug Testing, and Fatigue and Drug Awareness Training. The Board of Education Policy 3541 Transportation (see below) and Administrative Procedure 3541 Student Transportation detail the system s procedures for providing transportation for all students who are eligible. All elementary school age students living one and one-half miles or more from their assigned school are eligible for bus transportation. Middle and high school students residing two miles or more from their assigned school receive bus transportation. Students living in areas where the walk to school is deemed unsafe by the Director of Transportation, the Safety Officer and the Prince George s County Police Department, Special Operations Division, will be provided bus transportation. Students with special needs are provided specialized transportation as a related service to a public school, a non-public day school, or a residential school. All decisions regarding special needs students are decided through the Multidisciplinary Team (MDT). Students who are verified homeless are provided transportation to their schools of origin. Students who have temporary housing in Washington, DC, are transported to and from school on PGCPS buses. Students who have opted under No Child Left Behind to attend a choice school are picked up at comprehensive stops in their neighborhood and transported to their school of choice. Biking and walking will be coordinated through the Safe Routes to School Program. 9

Section 1 10

Goals, Standards, and Guidelines Food Service The mission of the Department of Food and Nutrition Services is to enhance the student s ability to learn by providing high quality nutritious meals at affordable prices, and relevant nutrition education materials to Prince George s County Public School students. All meals served are consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and must meet USDA guidelines to ensure that breakfast provides at a minimum ¼ of the required nutrient and lunch must provide a minimum of 1/3 of the daily nutrient requirements for children. PGCPS supports the mission of USDA and the Governors Office for Children to end childhood hunger. PGCPS has worked to ensure that students have increased access to meals. In addition to breakfast and lunch, we offer snacks and suppers to students participating in afterschool enrichment programs. We offer breakfast at no cost to students in 21 schools participating in the Maryland Meals for Achievement Classroom Breakfast Program. Through the generosity of a grant from Wal-Mart, we are able to offer Breakfast in the Classroom in 21 additional schools at no cost to the students. The Department of Food and Nutrition Services work with schools to help foster a healthy environment. We partner with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, Healthy Schools Program in promoting good nutrition and a healthy life style in our school communities. We encourage students to make healthy food choices and increase physical activity. We are constantly seeking ways to improve our service. We have made these improvements to our menus: Offering more fresh fruits and vegetables Limiting the amount of sugar in breakfast cereal Offering more whole grain and whole wheat products in many of grain products Serving 100% fruit juice at breakfast Offer only low-fat unflavored milk and fat-free flavored milk Eliminated foods containing Trans fat Offer no fried foods PGCPS has launched a website that features: Monthly menus for all grade levels Nutrient data Nutrition Education links Parent Account Management System (PAYPAMS) The Prince George's County Public Schools Board of Education adopted a Wellness, and Nutrition, and Physical Activity Policy 0116 for all schools (see below). The system is committed to healthy schools and lifestyles, providing a total learning environment that enhances the development of lifelong healthy habits in wellness, nutrition ad regular physical activity. 11

Section 1 12

Goals, Standards, and Guidelines Information Technology PGCPS is implementing a number of initiatives to improve the data infrastructure and enhance future decision making. Initiatives such as the Balanced Scorecard, Student Information System, and the Performance Management Grant (including a Data Warehouse and PMAPP) are all designed to improve either data collection or reporting. The Student Information System (SIS) implementation replaces several aging systems with an integrated system around student data. These initiatives are supported through the availability of infrastructure, hardware, software, training, and customer service. PGCPS implemented Performance Matters, an instructional assessment reporting system to provide timely data to teachers and instructional leaders. Performance Matters allows teachers to view their students performance on assessments, benchmarks, and grades over several years. The information is viewed in various ways such as: student, class, subgroup, school, and district. Performance Matters also incorporates quarterly benchmarks allowing teachers and instructional leaders to compare a student s performance to a previous year s test scores. Scores are broken down into objectives to show instructional staff where intervention efforts should be concentrated for each student. Staff is trained to utilize Performance Matters to make instructional decisions. PGCPS is also investing in a multi-year implementation of wireless technologies, mobile devices, and mobile applications to provide an anytime, anywhere learning environment throughout the school district. 13

Section 1 Cooperative Arrangements and Co-Locations PGCPS recognizes and supports the use of our facilities by outside agencies to meet the needs of the neighborhood and community. Board of Education Policy 1331 (see below) details this commitment. These partnerships build loyalty and a great sense of pride for the community and neighborhood. The Board of Education and Superintendent of Schools have made this a priority and approved at the January 7, 2010 Board of Education meeting, the development of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) for the following agencies in several of our consolidated schools: One World Center for Autism, John Carroll Elementary School John Carroll Recreation Council (Supported by M-NCPPC), John Carroll Elementary School M-NCPPC (Park-School), John E. Howard Elementary School Green Jobs Training Institute and Cleantech Entrepreneurial Innovation Center, Matthew Henson Elementary School Additionally, PGCPS works in partnership with the following agencies: M-NCPPC leases Oxon Hill Staff Development Center "Gymnasium Wing". Prince George's Community College, Culinary Arts Program, housed at John E. Howard Elementary School PGCPS has become a 24/7 operation with community groups permitted to use school facilities in accordance with Administrative Procedure 1330 After School Use of Facilities by Outside Organizations and Maryland Annotated Code, Education Article 7-108. Approval is made based on priority: First priority Any curricular or extracurricular program of the educational system. Second priority Parent-Teacher Associations. Third priority Any public park and recreation program sponsored by The Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Commission, its affiliated Recreation Councils, Prince George s County Boys and Girls Clubs, and municipal Recreation Departments of any municipality within the county. Fourth priority Other youth groups, such as Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts, Cub Scouts, Brownies, 4-H Clubs, YMCA, YWCA, and Recreation Councils not affiliated with M- NCPPC. Fifth priority All other facility users such as volunteer agencies, religious groups, improvement associations, etc. 14

15 Goals, Standards, and Guidelines

Section 1 Districting and Redistricting Policies and Procedures PGCPS s philosophy is to make the most economical and practical use of its physical resources in the implementation of its educational programs. The school system will periodically determine, by systemic study, the status of the current and projected use of all educational facilities and, with regard to the efficient utilization of space and the effective delivery of instruction, the reassignment of students accordingly, when necessary. Factors such as student enrollment trends, school building capacities, capacity utilization rates, transportation, student needs, educational programs, racial composition of the student body, financial considerations and community input will be considered. PGCPS is beginning Phase III of the boundary review process, which will focus on high schools. Based on input the school system received during Phases I and II, Phase III will be a very different process, and will expand discussion beyond boundaries and enrollment. Phase III utilizes the input received during stakeholder meetings on Secondary School Reform (SSR) as a starting point for discussion. SSR is focused on strategies for increasing success in high schools, including raising expectations for students, providing new options and opportunities, improving high school transition success, and empowering teachers, leaders, and schools. Phase III will also focus on determining which programs students and families would like to see in their communities, and expanding high school programs that are successful in raising student achievement, decreasing dropout rates and improving graduation rates. During the Phase III process, students, families, and community members can share their feedback by attending community forums and participating in an online survey. Information on Phase III and Secondary School Reform will be added to the PGCPS Web site as it becomes available. At the end of the process, rather than develop a set of boundary changes for adoption by the Board, the school system will emerge with a strategy to balance enrollments among high schools by having students and their family request to participate in specialized programs and educational themes. This will not be a quick fix, but will be implemented gradually beginning in the - school year. The Board of Education districting and redistricting policies and administrative procedures follow (see below): Board Policy 8391 School District and Boundary Matters Administrative Procedure 8391 Boundary Changes Board Policy 0113 School Boundaries and Attendance Areas Board Policy 5110.2 Attendance Areas 16

17 Goals, Standards, and Guidelines

Section 1 18

19 Goals, Standards, and Guidelines

Section 1 20

21 Goals, Standards, and Guidelines

Section 1 School Closing Procedures PGCPS s decision to close a school is based upon a thorough review of all data including declining enrollment, critical system financial circumstances, facility conditions, educational program quality, costs of unnecessarily keeping underutilized facilities open, feasible options to closing a school, and anticipated fiscal relief from school closure. See below for Board Policy 2570-Closing of School Buildings and the corresponding Administrative Procedure 2571. Consolidated Schools In June 2008, the Board of Education directed school administration to conduct a comprehensive review of available space in all school buildings. The goal was to better utilize available space and, with the current economic condition, operate more efficiently and realize a cost savings. After a series of community briefings, public hearings, survey responses and additional public input, the Board of Education voted March 26, 2009 to consolidate eight schools. The Board of Education, on January 7, 2010 and April 29, 2010, voted to approve the use of the consolidated schools for the 2010- school year: G. Gardner Shugart Middle School...To Be Determined Berskshire Elementary School...Forestville Boys and Girls Club John Carroll Elementary School...Administrative Office Space (PGCPS)...One World Center for Autism...John Carroll Recreation Council (Supported by M-NCPPC) John Eager Howard Elementary School...Administrative Office Space (PGCPS)... Prince George s Community College... M-NCPPC (Park-School) Matthew Henson Elementary School...Green Jobs Training Institute and Cleantech...Entrepreneurial Innovation Center Middleton Valley Elementary School... Swing Space for Avalon (PGCPS) Morningside Elementary School... Imagine Public Charter School Owens Road Elementary School...To Be Determined 22

23 Goals, Standards, and Guidelines

Section 1 24

25 Goals, Standards, and Guidelines

Section 1 Processes and Considerations for Site Selection and Approval Most of the school sites required for the new schools anticipated over the next several years, as identified in this Educational Facilities Master Plan () and the Capital Improvement Program, are already in the site bank of the Prince George s County Public Schools. The Board of Education recognizes the necessity to review, reexamine, and revise Administrative Procedure 7100 Capital Improvement Program New Construction. The Board has no plans to pursue the acquisition of any new school sites for its site bank or a specific project until this procedure is revised. Furthermore, the Board will give full consideration to the Prince George s County Approved General Plan (approved in 2002) as it proceeds with its review and establishment of this procedure. The Board will specifically consider those aspects pertaining to the Developed Tier, Public Facilities, and Urban Design. The Board recognizes the State and County initiatives to select school sites in appropriate areas and to limit the school site size for the development of public school buildings and the necessary exterior amenities. The Board further recognizes the potential to acquire and develop sites for joint use by the PGCPS and/or The M-NCPPC, or other governmental entities. These types of arrangements can more economically utilize land areas within the County and serve the educational, recreational, and community and/or neighborhood needs. The process for site identification and approval is detailed below: 1. Identification by the Board s Department of Pupil Accounting and School Boundaries of the general need in an area, and definition of the scope of the future school (number of students, grade levels, general academic program). 2. Analysis of candidate sties by the Site Selection Subcommittee of the School Construction Project Team (SCPT). The Site Selection Subcommittee includes staff from the Board Department of Capital Projects and Department of Pupil Accounting and School Boundaries; the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which provides the preliminary technical information; and the County Government. Typically, staff from the Department of Capital Programs visits each of the highest-recommended sites in order to corroborate the Commission s analyses with our visual observations of slopes, drainage patterns, and environmentally sensitive areas, etc. 3. Recommendation by the Site Selection Committee of prioritized sites to the SCPT, which must approve the preferred site for recommendation to elected officials. The SCPT was established under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding in 1998 as a monthly collaborative meeting of the Board, the Commission, and the County. 4. Briefing of Board member or members on all of the sites under consideration, and the rationale for the SCPT recommendation. It has not yet been determined if the briefing will be held with the Chair of the Board or the CIP Subcommittee. 5. Community hearing on the recommended sites. This requirement, introduced by Board Member Robert Callahan on December 6, 1999, has been followed for all new school projects. 6. Briefing of the Chair of the Board of Education, the Chair of the County Council, and the County Executive. Community concerns are discussed at these briefings. 7. Approval by the Board of Education. 26

Goals, Standards, and Guidelines 8. Submission of approved site to the State Clearinghouse, which distributes it for review to relevant State agencies. 9. Submission of site to State Interagency Committee for School Construction (IAC) for approval. State Rated Capacity The State of Maryland Public School Construction Program establishes a State Rated Capacity (SRC) formula for calculating the capacity of public school buildings in the school systems throughout Maryland. The SRC is then used to determine: 1. the utilization rate by comparing the enrollment or projected enrollment to the SRC 2. if a school building is overcrowded (enrollment exceeds the SRC) 3. if a school building is underutilized (enrollment is less than the SRC) 4. if an addition or a new school is justified and/or 5. if there might be improved utilization in a geographic area within the school system through school consolidation and/or closures. The following formula is used to determine the SRC of existing facilities: Elementary Schools SRC is derived through multiplying the number of classrooms by the State approved capacity: PreK classrooms x 20 Kindergarten classrooms x 22 Grades 1-5 x 23 Grade 6 x 25 Special Education x 10 Secondary Schools SRC is 85% of the product of the number of teaching stations times 25, and then adding the product of the number of teaching stations for special education and 10. The Board of Education, supported by the local government through their approval of the operating budget, provides for staffing of teachers, administrators and support personnel. The staffing at a particular school or group of schools is determined by the school system s administration, consistent with the staffing policies and/or procedures of the Board of Education. The staffing may be different between schools with similar grade organizations and/or the number of students based upon the specific characteristics of the students and their educational program and service needs and requirements. This staffing may result in class sizes that are above and/or below the class sizes outlined in the SRC formula. The Board of Education construction policies and administrative procedures follow (see below): Administrative Policy 7100 New Construction Administrative Procedure 7100 Capital Improvement Program New Construction and Attachment Administrative Procedure 7110.5 School Construction Building Alterations Affecting Capacity or Space 27

Section 1 28

29 Goals, Standards, and Guidelines

Section 1 30

31 Goals, Standards, and Guidelines

Section 1 32

33 Goals, Standards, and Guidelines

Section 1 34

35 Goals, Standards, and Guidelines

Section 1 36

37 Goals, Standards, and Guidelines

Section 1 38

39 Goals, Standards, and Guidelines

40

Educational Plans and Programs Bridge to Excellence Master Plan The Bridge to Excellence Master Plan provides school system administrators, teachers, community stakeholders, and elected officials with a clear and concise long-range plan of major instructional initiatives underway and planned for the students of Prince George's County Public Schools. The Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP) details major instructional initiatives and their impact on the PGCPS educational facilities. The school system is guided by five Strategic Goals: 1 High Student Achievement 2 Highly Effective Teachers 3 Safe and Supportive Schools 4 Strong Community Partnerships 5 Effective and Efficient Operations In addition, key initiatives with implications for facility use highlighted in the 2010- Bridge to Excellence Master Plan goals are as follows: Boundary Review (Phase II) (Goals 1, 5) Secondary School Reform (Goals 1) Review of Special Education Programs and Services (Goal 1) Review of ESOL Programs and Services (Goal 1) Expansion of CTE Programs (Goals 1) 41

Section 2 The nexus for all systemic planning, as detailed in the EFMP, is the focus that all students will graduate from high school college-and/or career-ready. The metric for this goal is 100% of all students will graduate college and/or career-ready as evidenced by all high school seniors taking an Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), or Dual Enrollment course and/or completing a career certification pathway. Supporting this ambitious goal are indicators around advanced mathematics in middle and high schools, with students earning at least two credits in foreign language and completing a long term planning guide known as an Personal Education Plan (PEP) (formerly the Individualized Learning Plan). All students are expected to score proficient or advanced in performance on Maryland State exams at all levels. Elementary Schools For the purpose of facility and educational planning, a standardized grade configuration and educational program makes for much easier macro decision-making. However, Prince George s County Public Schools has made a conscious effort to differentiate grade organizations and programs to fit the diverse needs of the community. Consequently, the system has a myriad of grade configurations, sometimes determined by student needs, building capacity, but also determined by community input, program demands and alternative governance structures. Prince George s County Public Schools envelops the following grade structures: Pre-K to 5, Pre-K to 6, K- 5, K-6, Pre-K to 8 and K to 8. We also have six Early Childhood Centers for Pre-K and special education youth. In addition to the myriad of grade configurations, we offer several different types of programs that are building-specific including traditional curricula, Montessori, French Immersion, Visual and Performing Arts, and Talented and Gifted programs. Finally, Prince George s County will host six charter schools at the elementary level for the upcoming school year. We also host five off-site Head Start programs. In the future, the system would like to continue to encourage creative programming and grade configurations PreK-12. This view is consistent with the current national education agenda of innovation and experimentation. It is PGCPS s intent to expand specialty programs and balance the access across the system. There are two ways to parcel the system in terms of access, five geographic clusters or North and South. By balancing programs across five clusters, we reduce transportation costs, but increase costs because specialty programs demand higher operating costs, and in some cases, facility costs. By balancing programs across the North and South, transportation costs increase, but program costs are reduced. The joint goals of access and a wide range of programming must coexist. From a consistent facility point of view, regardless of the grade configurations or specialty programs, all elementary schools need a functioning gymnasium that is separate from the cafeteria, a stage in the cafeteria, a plan for security and enough classroom space to eliminate the need for temporary classrooms. The determination of the specific needs will be based on an analysis of each individual school and available funding. 42

Educational Plans and Programs Middle Schools Middle schools in Prince George s County are configured for either grades 6-8 or grades 7 and 8. Several middle schools offer specialty programs such as Creative and Performing Arts (CPA), Middle Years Program (MYP), and Talented and Gifted. At this point, language immersion schools are concentrated in the K-8 grade configuration. Middle schools follow a five period block schedule allowing for daily instruction in the content areas of language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The fifth period allows for elective courses such as physical education, art, music, and foreign language. The five period day limits the prescribed number of opportunities for middle school students. The recently adopted system goals call for 75% of all students leaving 8 th grade with a credit in algebra and a credit in foreign language. To achieve this goal, the block period schedule will need to be adjusted to accommodate more electives. In SY2010-, the system convened a task force to make recommendations for a new schedule for the middle schools. Increasing the schedule from a 5 period to a 6 or 7 period day would allow for more elective courses. This would mean an increased number of students enrolled in music, band, chorus, strings, foreign language, art, technology, family and consumer sciences, college readiness courses (AVID), and remediation courses. Schools with cohorts of less than 110-120 students per grade will require differentiated staffing. These schools need more classrooms than would be suggested by a straight 25 to 1 ratio. This is particularly problematic in the K-8 schools, as they tend to have grade cohorts significantly below the 100-110-grade size. The expansion of the MYP is planned for five middle schools over the next five years. While not present in every middle school, the system anticipates an expansion so that MYP programs are balanced across the five geographic clusters. In addition, the system anticipates balancing creative and performing arts in both the North (current program) and South (anticipated program). There are currently two K-8 CPA programs offered in the southern region of the county. In terms of course electives, the middle schools focus will center on career awareness; so special classroom designs may not be necessary, except to accommodate the expansion of existing electives mentioned previously. However, with the continued inclusion of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) courses, middle schools will need to be equipped with functioning labs for science. All middle schools will need to be wired for wireless devices. It is anticipated that while computer labs may be necessary for current pedagogy and assessment, we anticipate a greater movement towards handheld or portable devices in the classroom. High Schools Prince George s County is currently involved in a Secondary School Reform initiative. This initiative is driven by the goal that all students will be college-and/or career-ready. To accomplish this, all high schools will need to offer courses and programs that have proven track records to college and career success. Specifically, this means the expansion of AP courses in all high schools, the inclusion of thriving IB programs balanced across the five geographic clusters, increased dual enrollment courses, increased partnerships with colleges and universities, and strong 43

Section 2 STEM programs balanced across the five geographic clusters. Each high school will then develop signature programs that reflects the vision of the school staff, students and community members. The signature programs will be career focused with pathways, CTE and programs such as World and Classical Languages. The goal is to balance course offerings across a geographic cluster and to allow student choice within a cluster. Potential expansions of programs include AVID, Project Lead the Way (Biomedical and Engineering), Human Development, Environmental Sciences, Hospitality, Homeland Security, and the more traditional CTE course offerings. The system plans to structure student schedules to allow them to be both career-and/or college-ready by the end of high school. The cluster arrangement was specifically designed to address program equity and utilization. Within each cluster, the sum of overcrowding and empty seats creates a net balance of zero, given current projections. The goal is to reduce the differences between enrollment and capacity and offer equal access to programs within geographic clusters and throughout the system. To implement this rigorous plan, high schools will need additional classrooms to accommodate classes with smaller than a 25:1 ratio. With expanded AP course offerings, differentiated staffing will need to occur. In addition, facilities will need to respond to the signature programs developed at each school. STEM themed high schools will require additional lab space. As we move deeper into the 21 st century, the system will consider various configurations for classrooms, allowing for conference rooms and smaller study carrels rather than the traditional rectangular classrooms. If the goal is to create a ready workforce, then the facilities need to reflect the environment of the workforce. In addition, the increased use of distance learning opportunities, particularly for advanced placement courses, may reduce the need for differentiated staffing, but will require space to house the students during the distance learning activities. It is assumed that distance learning activities will take place in a setting in which a small number of students can access the capabilities. This will require space, but not necessarily a classroom. Some signature programs would demand significant facility changes. Creative and Performing Arts require state of the art performance studios and auditoriums. Currently, Suitland High School houses the only CPA program in the system. In SY2010-, the Secondary School Reform team assessed and recommended signature programs for each comprehensive high school taking into consideration, interest, staff capacity, location, local partnerships and building capacity to help them determine the direction the school will take. Business partnerships are essential for the new high school programs such as, the Goddard Space Center, National Harbor, and the Fort Meade Alliance. Currently, the new courses are being developed for these programs and professional development is being provided to staff. In terms of the balancing of signature programs across clusters, it is difficult to determine the impact on enrollment. If done well, there should be a movement of students back to their boundary school as programs develop. In addition, it remains to be seen how elementary and middle schools will tailor their identities to fit with their feeder high schools. It is anticipated that there would be a balance in enrollments much closer to the State Rated Capacity and a move away from schools that are over and under capacity. The goal would be to make the programs attractive enough to insure a high utilization rate. 44

Educational Plans and Programs Portfolio Schools Complementing the traditional structures of elementary, middle and high schools, the system would like to expand non-traditional programs and schools. These schools would serve to fill in the gaps that currently exist in the traditional delivery of instruction. Alternative programs include schools serving students with mental health and behavioral issues, career related programs with intense internship opportunities, early college experiences, distance learning sites, private/public partnerships and charter schools. In some cases, the opportunities will be provided in nontraditional settings like a college campus (Middle Years College Program) or a work site such as a hospital. In other cases, the school will require a facility that meets the specifications of the program. For example, an alternative school for behaviorally challenged youth would need to be rather small (capacity less than 100 students), with rooms for mental health personnel. We anticipate increased partnerships with nonpublic schools to deliver special education services to our students who are currently traveling out of the system for non-public services. In some cases, these partnerships could be located in existing public school buildings. At this point, there is no plan to balance portfolio schools across the five geographic clusters, as this is more of an entrepreneurial venture. Rather than scale up successful programs, the goal would be to seek new and creative programs. There is a current plan to convert one of our consolidated buildings into a technology center. This would house all IT functions for the system, but it would also be a learning site for students seeking career certification in IT fields such as CISCO or Oracle. Career and Technology Education Far too often, Career and Technology Education (CTE) is perceived as an opportunity for only those students who do not intend to continue their educational career at a college or university. PGCPS recognizes the value CTE courses can provide to all students. The ability to apply what is learned in theory and to understand the connection of coursework to possible careers is an important experience. Likewise, students enrolled in a CTE Program of Study will be required to engage in the same rigorous courses as a student that plans to attend a four-year university, which includes 4 years of mathematics and 2 years of a world language. As previously mentioned, during SY2010-, high schools proposed signature programs that are more career-oriented and lend themselves to either a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) or Humanities focus. Based upon the program selected, the applicable CTE courses will be aligned to each high school. In effect, the distinction between CTE and Specialty Programs will be blurred. From a student s perspective, the student will choose the program of study that is of most interest to them, which may be a CTE Program of Study or what was formerly known as a Specialty Program that will include the applicable CTE courses. With the implementation of career planning through the Individualized Learning Plans, students will be better prepared to select pathways that match their interests. 45

Section 2 Below are the current Career and Technical Education offerings in PGCPS. Business and Computer Management Academy of Finance Accounting Business Administrative Services Business Management Marketing Management Experiential Learning Career Research and Development Work-Based Learning Family and Consumer Sciences Barbering Cosmetology Culinary Arts Early Childhood Education Hospitality & Restaurant Management Lodging Management Teacher Academy Technical Academy Air Conditioning/Refrigeration and Heating Automotive Body Collision Technology Automotive Technology Carpentry Computer Networking Architectural Design (Drafting/CAD) Electrical Information Technology Essentials Masonry Nursing/Medical Plumbing and Heating Publishing and Graphics This year, these and other program offerings within the ten MSDE CETE Career Clusters were examined and evaluated. Specific programs were selected to serve students within each high school, geographic cluster as well as in the North or South areas. Special Education The trend in special education is not to have single use (free standing) special education facilities. Instead, students with severe disabilities need some access to non-disabled peers and the nondisabled students benefit from interactions with those who are disabled. With that in mind, schools would have to be equipped for the special needs of severely disabled youth. This includes oversized bathrooms, changing areas, and the ability of instructional areas to accommodate wheelchairs and specialized equipment. The move to a least restrictive environment means that there will be fewer classrooms needed for special education only classrooms. Instead, students will be included in the general education setting to a greater degree. 46

Educational Plans and Programs English Speakers of Other Languages With the continually growing enrollment of students in which English is not their primary language, the school system continually adapts to meet these needs. Currently, services to ESOL students are generally delivered in the classroom setting. At times, students are pulled into small groups. In addition, the ESOL teaching workforce continues to grow, demanding more office space. However, we do anticipate an increase in parenting services to support families. Currently, we have an international office to process enrollment for students new to the country. In addition, schools continually plan for parent activities that include English lessons and perhaps even job skills. We look towards an increase of utilization of space as we offer these programs after school hours. Title I Schools Title I schools continue to benefit from enhanced funding opportunities. These opportunities allow schools the discretion of adding staff to reduce teacher-student ratios, additional coaches to assist with teacher professional development, additional intervention programs like Reading Recovery, additional staff for parent communication, enhanced technology, and expanded learning opportunities before and after school and during the summer. From a facilities perspective, these additional programs would require increased classroom and office space. We do not anticipate a growth in the number of Title I schools, but the list of Title I schools is somewhat dynamic, as the demographics in the district change over time. Charter Schools PGCPS currently has five operating charter schools, with three more opening in August ; bringing the total to eight charter schools. The prediction is that more charter schools will continue to open over the next several years. The opening of charter schools will have an impact on the student enrollment in the public schools by drawing students from private schools, home teaching, etc., back to the public school system. From a facilities perspective, part of the entrepreneurial spirit is to use existing space creatively. In other cases, they may be housed in a former public school building. Further, eligible charter schools may be included in future applications for capital funds. No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is transforming to adopt new goals of teacher effectiveness, longitudinal data systems, and the adoption of high quality assessments that ensure student achievement and the preparation of students for college and career readiness. The vision outlined above is directly aligned with the changes in NCLB, as well as the State of Maryland s application for Race to the Top. 47

Section 2 Schools in Improvement Schools that have struggled to make Adequate Yearly Progress could be moved into alternative governance plans. These plans allow the schools to restructure the delivery of instruction. Schools have some autonomy to re-envision their purpose. These new visions create different uses of space by allowing the school to extend the school day, change schedules and teaching loads and even change the types of programs to implement to ensure student success. These schools need the autonomy to flexibly recreate their structures. While this does have a facility impact, it is impossible to project what those changes need to be. High School Enrollment and Graduation Rates As the vision is implemented, the expectation is that fewer students will drop out of school and graduation rates will increase. While overall enrollment projections for the system are declining slightly, strong implementation of the vision will have an impact on enrollment. More students will stay in school through the 12 th grade, and more students will pass ninth grade, decreasing the enrollment numbers in Grade 9 but increasing enrollment in grades 10, 11 and 12. Finally, we expect to draw more students from non-public settings. However, this increase in enrollment may be spread across traditional and non-traditional schools. Waiting lists for charter schools continue to be high, and the increase of dual enrollment and the Middle Years College Program will provide education off-site in settings like the work force or on college campuses. Specific Program Needs Listed below is a table describing the specific program expansion for the next several years based on assessed need. These recommendations reflect current plans for expansion and the limitations or constraints of expanding these programs. The table below does not include long term expansion as highlighted in the preceding paragraphs. On the next page is a chart of existing programs and plans for future expansion: 48

Educational Plans and Programs Program Future Expansion - Head Start: 5 off site locations, 19 school Expand PreK, pending funding based programs. PreK Education: 230 classes serving 4500 students. PreK Special Education: 6 sites with 1697 students. Infant and Toddlers: 847 students housed in three Early Childhood Centers Montessori: Three existing programs Special Education CSEP Programs Self Contained Special Education Hard of Hearing Deaf Special Education Autism Special Education Emotionally Disturbed Special Education Orthopedically Handicapped Special Education Regional Schools Special Education Non-Public Placements Special Education Regional schools Special Education Type II partnerships Special Education Community Referenced Classes Slow expansion of programs. Need to add three in the near future. Overcrowding in the northern part of the system. Sites should have bathroom areas within the classroom. Includes, but is not limited to, sink and bathroom areas within the classroom, total accessibility within the building, along with adequate parking and space for age appropriate playground areas. Addressed in the PreK special education above. Expansion of Montessori in the K-8 grade configuration, requiring gymnasiums with gender based locker rooms. Anticipate 3 more classrooms. Bathrooms preferred. Anticipate two additional classrooms. Anticipate 6 additional classrooms. No anticipated growth in classrooms. No anticipated growth in classrooms. Additional classrooms in neighborhood schools as students move from Special Education Regional Centers. Efforts to decrease placement in non-public with students served in system schools, increasing enrollment in schools. Additional classrooms in neighborhood schools as students move from Special Education Regional Centers. Increase Type II partnerships, requiring classroom space. Anticipate the need for 4 additional classrooms. 49

50

Other Plans and Studies Comprehensive Maintenance Plan The Comprehensive Maintenance Plan (CMP) is prepared annually by the PGCPS Department of Maintenance. The objectives of the plan are to maintain positive learning environments; maintain the asset value of all facilities; provide continuous use of all facilities without disruption to the educational programs; conserve energy, and comply with all pertinent Federal, State, and local governmental regulations. The core services of the Maintenance Department are: 1. Emergency Response: Work required within 24 hours of notification to lessen an emergency condition that could be detrimental to the delivery of educational programs. 2. Maintenance Services: Work required to repair, maintain, and manage Prince George s County Public Schools and facilities. 3. Facility Improvements: Work required to manage the design and construction of capital improvement requirements, to enhance the learning environment in aging facilities, and to improve the Facility Condition Index (FCI) to national standards. 4. Support Services: Work required to support atypical maintenance services that satisfy senior leadership directives and educational program initiatives. The Maintenance Department s Mission is to provide a safe, comfortable, and nurturing environment for the children in the care of Prince George s County Public Schools and for the employees of the school system who provide for this care. There are five (5) program goals: 1. Maintain buildings in a manner that provides a safe, healthy, comfortable, and attractive learning environment; 2. Respond to conditions or emergency situations that might disrupt or jeopardize the availability of a safe environment conducive to learning; 3. Utilize those maintenance, repair, or construction methods that are safe, efficient, and economical; 4. Continue to implement Energy Performance Contracts to achieve energy savings to help accomplish facility improvements; 5. Continue to implement Phase II of the Lead Remediation Program to support safe and healthy learning environments. The CMP includes information pertaining to staffing, budgets, work orders, procedures for work orders and emergency situations, guidelines and schedules for preventative maintenance, energy performance contracts, and other related subjects. It also provides information that enables the staff to select the appropriate funding source for specific projects based upon their understanding of the scope of work and eligibility requirements (under the various funding options). Building systems and/or component repair and /or replacements, which require a significant financial investment, and qualify for capital funding, are identified for inclusion in the Capital Improvement Program for local and/or State funding. 51

Section 3 Improving the condition of the existing facilities over several years is a major objective and, therefore, a component of the EFMP. The CMP is prepared annually, approved by the Prince George s County Board of Education, and submitted to the State Public School Construction Program, as required. State Facility Adequacy Study (31 standards) On November 6, 2003, a report was submitted to the Task Force to Study Public School Facilities, which presented the result of a statewide assessment prepared by each of the 24 school systems pertaining to the 31 facility standards established by the Task Force. These assessments were made by each school system considering the existing conditions as of July 2003. The report was structured to indicate the number of schools in each jurisdiction that did not meet the standard and that figure was compared to the total number of schools in the system to which the standard was applicable. This resulted in a percentage figure of the schools that did not meet the standard. There were also cost estimates prepared based upon formulas for the different types of improvements required, which were developed by the State PSCP. Of the 31 standards, Prince George s County Public Schools had eighteen (18) standards that were below 30 percent, seven (7) standards that were between 31 percent and 50 percent, and only six (6) that were above 50 percent. The total estimated cost to bring all of the 198 public school buildings in Prince George s County up to the current 31 standards for new construction (having no deficiencies) was estimated to require $778,225,000 (based upon State established cost per square foot figures for July 2004). Almost all of the 31 standards would require significant expenditures to eliminate the deficiencies in the schools. Funding major renovations to the existing facilities and/or the replacement of older buildings would eliminate these deficiencies. Through the careful review of specific school building needs and requirements, some of the deficiencies are being ameliorated with smaller projects. These include projects funded under the following programs, which PGCPS has utilized in the past and continues to access them currently when available: systemic renovations, Aging School Program, OSCB, QZAB, FSRP, LOOK OF THE FUTURE, TIMS, and ESCO. There is a close working relationship between the PGCPS Department of Building Services and the Department of Capital Programs, which works collaboratively to identify potential projects, funding sources, and schedules for specific improvements. There is continuing and ongoing assessment of all of the school facilities in PGCPS. This and other activities have provided guidance and assistance to PGCPS in developing priorities and establishing the annual and five-year capital improvement program. Subsequent reassessments, if and when required by the State, would yield improved results (lower percentages of deficiencies). As some of the poorer schools are closed and the remaining schools are renovated and/or replaced, the deficiencies would be significantly reduced or eliminated. PGCPS had 18, or 58 percent, of the thirty-one standards that had percentages at 30% or below. This indicates a high degree of attainment of the State established standards. Fourteen (14) of them had only a 5% deficiency or lower. 52

Other Plans and Studies The seven (7) standards that were between 31 percent and 50 percent are identified below, by category with the total number of potential schools, the number of schools that did not meet the standard, the calculated percentage of those not meeting the standard, and the estimated cost to bring all schools up to the standard for that element. Some of these deficiencies have been eliminated through the programs mentioned above (since 2003) and other schools would benefit from those same actions in the future. Standard Number of potential schools Number of schools not meeting the standard Percentage of schools not meeting the standard Estimated cost for improvements ($000 omitted) Human Comfort 198 85 43% 107,977 Lighting 198 79 40% 7,035 Student Capacity 198 98 49% 496,825 Technology 28 9 32% 924 Education Auditoriums/Theatre 24 9 38% 40,800 Arts Administration 198 63 32% 3.962 Itinerant Services 198 86 43% 3,483 The six (6) standards that were above 50 percent are identified below, by category with the total number of potential schools, the number of schools that did not meet the standard, the calculated percentage of those not meeting the standard, and the estimated cost to bring all schools up to the standard for that element. Some of these deficiencies have been eliminated through the programs mentioned above (since 2003) and other schools would benefit from those same actions in the future. Standard Number of potential schools Number of schools not meeting the standard Percentage of schools not meeting the standard Estimated cost for improvements ($000 omitted) Indoor Air Quality 198 138 70% 195 Fire Safety 198 121 61% 24,060 Telecommunication 198 175 88% 19,760 Systems Pre-K and K 144 130 90% 1,423 Classrooms Fine Arts 198 137 70% 29,074 Health Services 198 191 96% 14,431 53

Section 3 Emergency Preparedness The purpose of the Emergency Preparedness Program is to minimize the impact of an emergency situation on the operation of school facilities through swift assessment, immediate action, and restoration of services. Examples of emergencies are problems with or the loss of utility services such as electricity, water, and the loss of life safety systems. This could include fire alarms, damages that result in loss of building security, building structural integrity or exterior envelope failures. Each school building has an emergency plan. As school buildings are renovated and/or new schools opened, the plan is revised or prepared for the specific building and the appropriate staff trained in the implementation of the plan. Through a careful review of the individual school Emergency Plans, specific facility requirements are identified and scheduled for improvement with appropriate funding sources. Safety and Security The activities of the Safety Office ensure that new and renovated facilities are delivered in compliance with best safety practices and regulations. The Safety Office provides training in the following areas: fire drills, transportation safety programs, fire prevention techniques, protective equipment use, and emergency procedures. The office inspects and investigates unsafe or potentially unsafe conditions at schools, offices and other work locations or neighborhoods. This office also reviews and evaluates safety inspection data from schools on accident report forms to establish trends, cause and preventive measures; evaluate current safety conditions in schools, buildings and grounds; identify, evaluate, prioritize, maintain control measures, and monitor removal of hazards; take specific actions to eliminate hazards; develop staff/student safety consciousness; and, establish responsibilities for safety inspections and conditions in schools, buildings and grounds. Safety Assessments are conducted of buildings, schools, bus lots, safe walking routes, and playgrounds to identify hazards that may cause serious injury, illness, and/or death. Some of the typical recommendations included: installation of fencing, installation of emergency lighting, additional buses, additional sidewalks, signage, removal of debris, installation of pedestrian crosswalk infrastructure, and repair/replacement of playground equipment. The Safety Office coordinates with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance Officer to make improvements at schools and administration buildings to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Schools are visited twice each year to inspect the storage of flammable/hazardous materials in instructional and storage areas. The Emergency Operation Plans have been expanded to include system-wide drills that demonstrate preparedness for disasters. 54

Other Plans and Studies Providing safe and secure public school buildings is a high priority for PGCPS. One means of developing a secure building is through the use of video cameras. They have been installed successfully at a number of PGCPS facilities. As new schools and major renovations projects are undertaken, the plans and specifications for video security and surveillance systems are included in the PGCPS requirements. Another consideration during the design process includes Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Asbestos Management Plans PGCPS still has some older public school buildings which contain asbestos. Each building that does contain any amount of asbestos is identified and known to the school building level staff and the central office personnel. Buildings are inspected and plans are updated as needed and/or required. As plans for repairs and/or any capital improvement to one of these buildings are developed the information related to asbestos is provided to the design team. When major renovation projects are approved the plans and specifications that are developed include the removal of asbestos containing materials. Lead Paint PGCPS does not have the exact number of schools and facilities that contain lead based paint. It is assumed that any structure constructed prior to 1978 has surfaces that may be coated with a lead based paint. Maintenance employees and PGCPS paint contractors have been trained and instructed to address all paint surfaces in buildings constructed prior to 1978 as lead based. These individuals are instructed to adhere to the standards listed in the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration standard, 1910.1025 (Lead in General Industry) and 1926.62 (Lead in Construction). Any area where there is peeling or flaking paint in a pre-1978 structure is isolated and repaired by trained maintenance personnel using wet methods that minimize the generation of dust and flakes. PGCPS has staff that periodically inspects classrooms in pre-1978 buildings utilized by PreK, kindergarten and first grade students for any signs of cracking, peeling, flaking and/or dust on painted surfaces. Lead in Water PGCPS has implemented a lead-in-water remediation program. The program entailed the sampling and analysis of 2,608 primary water fixtures at 205 facilities (hallway, gym, and multi-purpose room drinking fountains and kitchen fixtures). Actual remediation began in 2007 (Phase I) and focused on leaded components in the kitchens, hallway fountains and multi-purpose rooms located in our system s elementary and special centers. Phase II, which commenced in 2008, addressed lead concerns associated with classroom sinks and water fountains located in elementary schools. We are awaiting signed bids for the Phase III portion of the lead-in-water program. It is anticipated that Phase III will begin in the summer of and will continue to address lead concerns in elementary, middle and high schools and special centers. 55

56

Community Analysis Prince George s County Outlook 2005-2040 Prince George s County s economic future remains closely linked with that of the Washington D.C. Metropolitan area and its member jurisdictions growth and potential. The economic stability and market strength of the Washington area, and increasing interaction with the Baltimore metropolitan economy, are frequently cited as dynamic factors vital to stimulating local growth and providing expanded development potential. Over the years, each local jurisdiction has developed its own identity, character, and position within this region. Employment gains and population growth have not always been evenly distributed among the region s jurisdictions. There have been, and will likely continue to be, periods of rapid change, stagnation and retrenchment among the region s communities during various time periods. There persists a sense of optimism about the Washington region and its potential to attract new ideas, greater investment, and more residents with the increased interest in new investment in the regional core, Washington, D.C. along with the large tracts of vacant land in the area, are viewed as positive indicators for the future of Prince George s County. The federal government continues to play a central role in the economics of the Washington area and Prince George s County. Even in areas where it is not the primary employer, the federal government often attracts other commercial enterprise through its presence, procurement practices, regulatory authority, legislative influence or some combination thereof. Recent years have witnessed an increase in the presence of several major federal agencies in Prince George s County including the Food and Drug Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and the expanded and remodeled facilities at the Census Bureau site in Suitland, as well as the anticipated increase of military personnel at Andrews Air Force Base due to the federally-mandated Base Realignment and Closure and other Department of Defense job transfers. The presence of these agencies in the county runs counter to the general pattern of federal downsizing and retrenchment being experienced by many localities both in the Washington area and across the country. This expanded presence raises the visibility of the county and its potential to attract additional development. The link between the county s economic future and that of the region as well as the link between federal direct and contract employment and the county s growth are underpinnings of a regional program known as the Cooperative Forecast. This program is an ongoing, joint effort by jurisdictions in the metropolitan area to capture the timing and location of future growth. The most recent forecast Round 8.0 was completed in 2010. This round reflects the 2002 Approved General Plan for Prince George s County by calling for an increase in residential density, more infill development, and faster employment growth relative to historic trends. In addition Round 8.0 reflects the proposed amendment to the Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) to include the Purple Line. The table below contains the Round 8.0 Forecast for Prince George s County along with the resulting jobs-to-population ratio (j:p), a measure identified in the General Plan. 57

Section 4 Year SF MF DU HH POP EMP j:p 2005 211,456 101,246 312,702 299,867 835,689 347,885 0.42 2010 220,617 103,081 323,698 306,006 846,169 358,385 0.42 225,477 108,509 333,989 319,057 873,120 370,135 0.42 2020 232,773 114,564 347,338 331,065 895,740 383,635 0.43 2025 238,967 120,555 359,523 340,456 913,402 399,635 0.44 2030 244,293 123,683 367,972 348,806 928,275 419,635 0.45 2035 248,817 126,392 375,210 355,337 939,919 444,135 0.47 2040 251,360 127,877 379,237 360,110 950,110 474,635 0.50 Note: SF = Single Family Dwelling Unit, MF = Multiple Family Dwelling Unit, DU = Total Dwelling Units, HH = Heads of Households, POP = Total Population, EMP = Total Employment, j:p = Ratio of EMP to POP The employment growth and its distribution reflect the county s desire for an increase in nonresidential growth, particularly in preferred areas. The majority of the county s growth in employment and dwelling units is expected to take place primarily in the Developing Tier. It is important to note that the Developed Tier is expected to place a close second with an almost equal share of dwelling units until 2025 after which time the availability of vacant land and the lack of infill opportunities is expected to decline. Most of the additional dwelling units and employment opportunities in the Developed Tier are expected at the counties Metro Stations such as New Carrolton, Naylor Road, Branch Avenue, and Largo. The Round 8.0 Forecast shows that employment growth rates in the developed tier are also expected to be close to that of the developing tier. Once again the majority of this growth in employment is focused at the county s Metro Stations. The county s employment is expected to grow 36% during the forecast period (2005-2040). Source: Round 8.0 Cooperative Forecast 58

Community Analysis The total number of dwelling units in the county is expected to grow by 21%. The Round 8.0 Forecast shows that most of the growth will occur in the Developing Tier, and that dwelling unit growth in the Developed Tier will remain close. This is in-line with the Prince George s County Approved General Plan. Source: Round 8.0 Cooperative Forecast Furthermore in Round 8.0 the number of new dwelling units is expected to decline each year because the county s zoning capacity of about 400,000 units will be reached shortly after 2040. Although not the sole determinant of capacity, plans and plan capacity also play a role, zoning capacity will have a limiting effect on growth. At the same time, job growth is expected to increase. Source: Round 8.0 Cooperative Forecast 59

Section 4 The following maps illustrate the geographic distribution of growth during the forecast period. They highlight the concentrations of residential and employment growth. 60

Community Analysis The demographic profile of Prince George s County that follows is provided by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). The source of the 2000 data shown is the 2000 Decennial Census. The 2010 population and race data are from the 2010 Decennial Census. The remaining 2010 and figures are ESRI projections. The 2010 total population for the county is 863,420. Demographic and Income Profile for Prince George s County Maryland Summary 2000 2010 Population 801,515 863,420 873,120 Households 286,610 310,143 319,057 Families 198,066 208,014 210,351 Average Household Size 2.74 2.73 2.72 Owner Occupied Housing Units 177,177 188,293 194,625 Renter Occupied Housing Units 109,433 121,850 124,432 Median Age 33.2 35.0 35.2 Households by Income 2000 2010 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent <$15,000 22,929 8.0% 19,229 6.2% 15,953 5.0% $15,000 - $24,999 23,156 8.1% 16,438 5.3% 13,400 4.2% $25,000 - $34,999 32,178 11.2% 22,640 7.3% 16,910 5.3% $35,000 - $49,999 48,531 16.9% 42,179 13.6% 33,182 10.4% $50,000 - $74,999 67,370 23.5% 68,852 22.2% 74,021 23.2% $75,000 - $99,999 43,778 15.3% 66,681 21.5% 59,345 18.6% $100,000 - $149,999 36,479 12.7% 50,553 16.3% 73,383 23.0% $150,000 - $199,999 8,525 3.0% 15,507 5.0% 20,739 6.5% $200,000+ 3,704 1.3% 8,064 2.6% 12,124 3.8% Population by Age 2000 2010 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0-4 57,940 7.2% 60,439 7.0% 60,245 6.9% 5-9 64,103 8.0% 58,713 6.8% 59,372 6.8% 10-14 59,725 7.5% 56,122 6.5% 56,753 6.5% 15-19 57,568 7.2% 66,483 7.7% 59,372 6.8% 20-24 58,612 7.3% 66,483 7.7% 68,103 7.8% 25-34 126,178 15.7% 122,606 14.2% 129,222 14.8% 35-44 138,319 17.3% 121,742 14.1% 116,125 13.3% 45-54 110,051 13.7% 127,786 14.8% 119,618 13.7% 55-64 67,068 8.4% 96,703 11.2% 101,282 11.6% 65-74 36,813 4.6% 51,805 6.0% 63,738 7.3% 75-84 19,452 2.4% 25,093 2.9% 28,813 3.3% 85+ 5,686 0.7% 9,498 1.1% 10,477 1.2% Race and Ethnicity 2000 2010 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 216,729 27.0% 166,059 19.2% 169,385 19.4% Black Alone 502,550 62.7% 556,620 64.5% 551,812 63.2% American Indian Alone 2,795 0.3% 4,258 0.5% 4,366 0.5% Asian Alone 31,032 3.9% 35,172 4.0% 33,179 3.8% Pacific Islander Alone 447 0.1% 541 0.1% 872 0.1% Some Other Race Alone 27,078 3.4% 73,440 8.5% 83,820 9.6% Two or More Races 20,884 2.6% 27,330 3.2% 29,686 3.4% Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 57,057 7.1% 128,972 14.9% 160,654 18.4% Source: ESRI Forecasts State and National Trends 2010 and. Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars. 61

Section 4 Although Round 8.0 projects the number of new dwelling units, as cited above, a look at the historical aspect of this subject is warranted. The number of new housing units completed each year contributes to the overall growth and development of Prince George s County. The table below shows the number of Single Family Units, Multiple Family Units, and the Total Number of Units completed for each of the years shown. The years 1960 and 1970 reflect a boom in multiple family units which significantly increased the total number of units for those years. After 1970, with the shift to predominantly single family units the total number of housing units constructed in the county in any given year was reduced. The economic climate for the past few years is reflected in the most relative few units completed in the past five years (for which data is available). Year Single Family Multiple Family Total Number Units Units of Units 1960 3,486 1,595 5,081 1970 2,551 3,620 6,171 1980 1,975 150 2,125 1990 4,070 54 4,124 2000 3,008 450 3,458 2005 2,817 424 3,241 2008 1,741 900 2,641 2009 1,542 189 1,731 2010 1,481 347 1,828 Source: The M-NCPPC Annual Housing Completed Construction in Prince George s County (3/) Round 8.0 Cooperative Forecast is used for planning purposes. The Planning Department uses the forecast in transportation and public facilities planning in addition to our master and sector plan work. Other county agencies use the forecast to establish service areas, develop programs, and monitor caseloads. The state and federal government also use the forecast for funding decisions and program evaluation. In addition, individuals and organizations in the private sector, including developers, brokers and non-profits use the forecast to develop plans and evaluate programs. 62

Community Analysis Prince George s County Approved General Plan The General Plan is the primary official public policy document guiding the county s physical development. It sets broad, long-range policies for the future growth and development of Prince George s County and serves as a guide for providing county infrastructure and investment. It is implemented through more detailed levels of planning contained in area master plans and in specialized plans such as the transit district development plans, functional plans, and sector plans. Implementation of the General Plan policies is accomplished through ordinances and regulations governing the amount, location and character of future development. The plan designates three growth policy Tiers: the Developed, Developing and the Rural Tier and it proposes policies to guide development in each tier/area. It also designates Centers and Corridors within the Developed and Developing Tiers where there are increased efforts to concentrate development. The General Plan is a tool utilized to better manage growth. The plan recommends goals, objectives, policies, and strategies for environmental infrastructure, transportation systems, public facilities (including Prince George s County Public Schools), economic development, housing, revitalization, urban design, and historic preservation. 63

Section 4 64

COMMUNITY & COUNTYWIDE PLANS WITHIN PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY Approved Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the Addison Road Metro Town Center and Vicinity Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Bladensburg-New Carrollton and Vicinity Approved Bladensburg Town Center Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Bowie and Vicinity Approved Bowie State MARC Station Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment The Approved Branch Avenue Corridor Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment Approved Capitol Heights Transit District Development Plan and Transit District Overlay Zoning Map Amendment Approved Central Annapolis Road Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment Approved College Park-Riverdale Transit District Development Plan Approved College Park US 1 Corridor Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment Approved Central US 1 Corridor Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment Approved Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the East Glenn Dale Area Approved Functional Master Plan for Public School Sites in Prince George s County, Maryland Community Analysis YEAR APPROVED October 2000 May 1994 June 2007 February 2006 January 2010 September 2008 July 2008 October 2010 October 1997 April 2002 June 2010 March 2006 October 1983 Approved General Plan October 2002 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham and Vicinity Approved Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the Greenbelt Metro Area March 2010 October 2001 65

Section 4 COMMUNITY & COUNTYWIDE PLANS WITHIN PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY YEAR APPROVED Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan June 2005 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the Heights and Vicinity November 2000 Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan June 2010 Approved Landover Gateway Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Landover and Vicinity Approved Master Plan for Langley Park-College Park-Greenbelt and Vicinity and Adopted Sectional Map Amendment Approved Master Plan and Adopted Sectional Map Amendment for Largo-Lottsford Approved Marlboro Pike Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Melwood-Westphalia Approved Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Morgan Boulevard and Largo Town Center Metro Areas Approved New Carrollton Transit District Development Plan and Transit District Overlay Zoning Map Amendment May 2009 February 1993 and July 1993 October 1989 and May 1990 July 1990 November 2009 March 1994 May 2004 May 2010 Approved Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment October 2009 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Planning Area 68 Approved Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the Prince George s County Gateway Arts District May 1994 November 2004 Approved Public Safety Facilities Master Plan March 2008 66

Community Analysis COMMUNITY & COUNTYWIDE PLANS WITHIN PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY Approved Town of Riverdale Park Mixed-Use Town Center Zone Development Plan Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Subregion 1 YEAR APPROVED January 2004 March 1990 and October 1990 Approved Subregion 4 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment June 2010 Approved Subregion 5 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment September 2009 Approved Subregion 6 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment September 2009 Adopted and Approved Master Plan for Subregion VII, Henson Creek and South Potomac Approved Suitland Mixed-Use Town Center Zone Development Plan October 1981 February 2006 Suitland-District Heights and Vicinity Approved Master Plan and July 1985 and Adopted Sectional Map Amendment March 1986 Approved Takoma/Langley Crossroads Sector Plan November 2009 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan April 2010 Approved Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the Tuxedo Road/Arbor Street/Cheverly Metro Area April 2005 Approved Westphalia Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment February 2007 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation November 2009 Source: Prince George s County Planning Department, M-NCPPC, April 67

Section 4 Water/Sewer Planning Process Title 9, Subtitle 5, of the State Environment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland requires every county to develop a water and sewer plan to ensure that there is adequate public water and sewer service for planned development. In Prince George s County the responsibility for creating a water and sewer plan is shared between the Executive and Legislative Branches of government. The County Executive has the responsibility for ensuring that the goals, objectives, and legal authority are complied with and for creating and submitting the plan and amendments to the County Council. The County Council exercises its legislative powers by preparing objectives and policies that set forth the framework for the plan and ultimately by approving the plan and plan amendments after a public hearing. The Prince George s County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is the author of the county s 2008 Water and Sewer Plan and is also responsible for updating the plan. State law further requires that the plan be referred to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M- NCPPC), the Health Department, the Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T), among others, for review and comments. It is the role of the M-NCPPC to provide information on population and employment distribution, growth projections, planning factors, zoning, and other development review standards and submit a recommendation for each category change to determine if the change meets county planning objectives. State law requires that the M-NCPPC find amendments of the Water and Sewer Plan to be consistent with the General Plan and all master plans prior to adoption by the County Council. The 2008 Water and Sewer Plan was adopted on November 18, 2008. Its text includes critical chapters dealing with such items as policies and procedures for water and sewer planning, descriptions of water and sewer categories, and existing water systems and sewage treatment facilities. It also sets forth the procedures and requirements for amending the plan and water and sewer service categories. The maps depict the official water and sewer category designations for all properties in the county. The water and sewer categories determine if and when service is available to the property. The county uses four water and sewer categories: Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Community System This category comprises all developed land on public water and sewer, and undeveloped land with a valid preliminary plan approved for public water and sewer. Community System Adequate for Development Planning This category includes properties inside the Sewer Envelope eligible for public water and sewer for which the subdivision process is required. Future Community Service Category 5 consists of properties inside the Sewer Envelope that are eligible for public water and sewer, but should not be developed until adequate public facilities, including water and sewer lines are available to serve the proposed development. 68

Community Analysis Category 6 Individual Systems This category consists of all areas outside the Sewer Envelope (outside the limit of planned water and sewer service) and for select larger tracts of parkland and open space inside the Sewer Envelope. The majority of public schools and school facilities within Prince George s County are in a Category 3, Community System for both water and sewer. There are four public school facilities outside of the Sewer Envelope in a Category 6, Individual System for water and sewer. These school facilities are Croom Vocational High School at RICA in Cheltenham, Tall Oaks Vocational High School in Bowie, Baden Elementary School and William S. Schmidt Outdoor Education Center in Brandywine. The map on the following page shows the four Water and Sewer Categories established under the 2008 County Plan and the location of each public school. 69

Section 4 70

Community Analysis 2009 Approved Countywide Master Plan of Transportation Trails, Bikeways, and Pedestrian Mobility The Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (CMPOT) places a priority on multimodal transportation and providing opportunities for some trips to be made by walking or bicycling. The CMPOT proposes an extensive network of trails, side paths, neighborhood trail connections, standard and wide sidewalks, and on-road bicycle facilities to facilitate non-motorized trips, especially near metro and within designated centers and corridors. This is also important around schools, parks, and other public facilities where school children may travel by foot or bicycle. Related to this is the Complete Streets element of the CMPOT, which includes several policies and strategies to ensure that roads are constructed to accommodate all modes of transportation, including walking and bicycling. The idea of complete streets involves adequately accommodating all modes of transportation along roadways. It places a priority on ensuring that all users are safely, comfortably, and adequately accommodated along area roads. The principles of complete streets should be incorporated into land use planning and urban design and also utilized during the review of development applications, road frontage improvements, and capital improvements projects for roadways or intersections to ensure a more multimodal transportation network. It is crucial that all modes of transportation are incorporated into all phases of planning, design and implementation. The intent of the policies and strategies of the CMPOT is to foster the development of a comprehensive network of trails, sidewalks, and bicycle-compatible roads to allow residents to make some trips by walking or bicycling. This network will also accommodate safe pedestrian and bicycle access to county schools as envisioned in the Safe Routes to School program. Although there are many specific policies and strategies related to implementing the master plan trails network and the provision of complete streets, several general policies in particular summarize how this will be implemented as development occurs and future improvements are made. The Trails, Bikeways, and Pedestrian Mobility chapter of the CMPOT includes the following policy regarding pedestrian oriented development in centers and corridors. Incorporate appropriate pedestrian-oriented and TOD features in all new development within designated centers and corridors. The Complete Streets Section of the CMPOT includes the following policies regarding sidewalk construction and the accommodation of pedestrians. Provide standard sidewalks along both sides of all new road construction within the Developed and Developing Tiers. All road frontage improvements and road capital improvement projects within the Developed and Developing Tiers shall be designed to accommodate all modes of transportation. Continuous sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities should be included to the extent feasible and practical. 71

Section 4 Small area plans within the Developed and Developing Tiers should identify sidewalk retrofit opportunities in order to provide safe routes to school, pedestrian access to mass transit, and more walkable communities. Another crucial component of the overall pedestrian and trail network is ensuring safe routes to schools for school age children in the county. Safe and convenient sidewalk and trail connections around area schools can improve pedestrian safety for children in established communities, reduce the need for car and bus trips to schools, and improve the overall walkability and livability of communities. There has been a high priority placed on the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program by the state in recent years, and Prince George s County was recently awarded a SRTS Grant for improving pedestrian accommodations around several elementary schools. The CMPOT also addresses SRTS with the following policy: Develop a safe school routes strategy as an integral part of a comprehensive Prince George s County complete streets policy. This policy also includes the following specific strategy for the development of a complete streets and SRTS policy in the county: Coordinate the county complete streets policy with school route analysis and planning by the Prince George s County Planning Department, the Prince George s County Board of Education, and the Prince George s County Department of Public Works and Transportation. It will be important to measure progress in the development of complete streets and safe routes to schools in coming years. Benchmarks should be identified that accurately measure the progress in these areas as sidewalks are construction, on-road bicycle facilities are signed and striped, and the trails network is implemented. The following recommendations will help to ensure that progress is measured and that the policies and strategies of the CMPOT are implemented. Continue to participate in the Maryland Safe Routes to Schools Program and submit grant applications as needs are identified. Develop methodologies for inventorying and measuring the amount of new sidewalk and trail construction, particularly around schools and within Centers and Corridors. Develop methodologies for inventorying and measuring the amount of new designated bike lanes and other on-road bicycle facilities, particularly around schools and within Centers and Corridors. Implement the Complete Streets policies and strategies of the CMPOT as new development occurs. 72

Community Analysis Ensure that the Complete Streets policies and strategies are implemented around schools through routine maintenance and the capital improvement program where feasible. Identify opportunities for new neighborhood trail connections that improve access to schools during the development of small area plans and implemented as part of development applications where feasible. Trail planning and design should take into account the needs of school children and improve safe pedestrian access to area schools where feasible. APF and Public Schools The Prince George s County Code has several sections pertaining to the adequacy of public facilities. It starts with Sec. 24-122.01. Adequacy of public facilities. It states in part that the Planning Board may not approve a subdivision plat if it finds that adequate public facilities do not exist or are not programmed for the area within which the proposed subdivision is located. The following public facilities are to be reviewed and considered: water and sewerage, police facilities, and fire and rescue facilities. The Planning Board shall require adequate public facilities in these three categories in order to obtain approval of a subdivision plat. There is a separate section of the County Code, pertaining to public school facilities. This is found in Sec. 24-122.02 School Facilities Test. It states in part that at the time of a filing of a preliminary plat for a subdivision, the Prince George s County Planning Board shall apply an adequacy of school facilities test. The following is directly from this section of the code: I. The test shall be applied to a proposed subdivision as it affects school clusters, which are groupings of elementary, middle, and high schools which would be impacted by the subdivision. II. A subdivision meets the test, unless otherwise provided below, if the number of students generated by the proposed subdivision at each stage will not exceed 105% of the state rated capacity, as adjusted by the School Regulations, of the affected elementary, middle, and high school clusters, as determined by the Planning Board. III. The number of elementary, middle, and high school students generated by the proposed subdivision shall be determined in accordance with the pupil yield factors, as defined in Section 24-101(b), for each dwelling unit type as determined by the Planning Board from historical information provided by the Superintendent of the Prince George's County Public Schools. IV. The Planning Board shall determine: A. The school cluster or clusters impacted by the subdivision. B. The actual enrollment, which is the number of elementary, middle, and high school students, as reported by the Superintendent of the Prince George s County Public Schools as of September 30 of the prior year, and as calculated by the Planning Board and effective in January of each year for use in that calendar year. C. The completion enrollment, which is the total number of elementary, middle, and high school students to be generated by the estimated number of residential completions, for each school cluster. 73

Section 4 (i) Residential completions are estimated from the total of all substantially completed dwelling units added to the County s assessable tax base in the two previous calendar years. (ii) In determining completion enrollment, the estimated number of residential completions in a given school cluster will not exceed the number of dwelling units shown on: a. An approved preliminary plat of subdivision with no waiting period, or with a waiting period less than 24 months as of September 30 of each calendar year; and b. All recorded plats not subject to an adequate public facilities test for schools at time of building permit issuance. D. The subdivision enrollment, which is the anticipated number of elementary, middle, and high school students to be generated by all dwelling units shown on the proposed preliminary plat of subdivision, multiplied by the pupil yield factor. E. The cumulative enrollment, which is the total of all subdivision enrollments resulting from approved preliminary plats of subdivision in each school cluster for the calendar year in which an adequate public facilities test is being applied. V. The Planning Board shall determine the subdivision's cluster enrollment by adding: the actual number of students in the cluster as of September 30; the number of students anticipated from residential completions in the cluster; the number anticipated from the subdivision; and the number anticipated from subdivisions already approved in the cluster within the calendar year. The Board shall then determine the percent capacity by dividing the cluster enrollment by the state rated capacity (adjusted by the School Regulations) of schools in the cluster. The Code then goes on to identify the types of subdivision plats that are exempt from this school facilities test. These include projects such as: a redevelopment project that replaces existing dwelling units; elderly housing operated in accordance with State and Federal Fair Housing law; projects containing no more than three lots on less than five gross acres of land (with some conditions); and projects located in the Developed Tier. A development project could be denied if it fails the Adequacy of public facilities requirement under Sec. 24-122.01. However, a project that does not pass the School Facilities Test under Sec. 24-122.02 will not be denied and can proceed. There are also provisions in the County Code for a Public Schools Facilities Surcharge, under Sec.10-192.01. It states in part that the County Council, by ordinance, shall impose a school facilities surcharge on new residential construction for which a county building permit is issued on or after July 1, 2003; a building permit is issued on or after July 1, 2003, by a municipal corporation in Prince George s County with zoning authority and the authority to issue building permits; and the County Council may not impose a school facilities surcharge on new residential construction for which a building permit is issued by a municipal corporation if Prince George s County has collected a surcharge on issuance of a County permit for the same new residential construction. The Code does identify specific project types to which the Public Schools Facilities Surcharge does not apply. 74

Community Analysis Priority Funding Areas The Smart Growth Priority Funding Areas Act of 1997 was enacted to influence state expenditures on economic growth and development by directing state funding to designated Priority Funding Areas. The map that follows shows the Priority Funding Areas and the location of the public schools in Prince George s County. Growth-related projects covered by the legislation include most State programs that encourage or support growth and development such as highways, sewer and water construction, economic development assistance, and State leases or construction of new office facilities. Beginning October 1, 1998, funding for projects in municipalities, other existing communities, industrial areas, and planned growth areas designated by counties receive priority state funding over other projects. State and local governments target their efforts to encourage and support economic development and Smart Growth. The following qualifies as Priority Funding Areas: every municipality, as they existed in 1997; areas inside the Washington Beltway and the Baltimore Beltway; and areas already designated as enterprise zones, neighborhood revitalization areas, heritage areas and existing industrial land. The Smart Growth legislation recognizes the role local governments play in managing growth and determining the locations most suitable for State-funded projects. Counties may designate areas as Priority Funding Areas if they meet guidelines for intended use, availability of plans for sewer and water systems, and permitted residential density. Areas eligible for county designation are existing communities and areas where industrial or other economic development is desired. In addition, counties may designate areas planned for new residential communities which will be served by water and sewer systems and meet density standards. Most of the public schools within Prince George s County are within Priority Funding Areas. There are only 11 schools in the Upper Marlboro, Brandywine, Mitchellville and Bowie areas that are outside of Priority Funding Areas. These public schools are as follows: Upper Marlboro Arrowhead Elementary Croom Vocational High Frederick Douglass High Mattaponi Elementary Mitchellville Woodmore Elementary Bowie Tall Oaks Vocational High Brandywine Accokeek Academy Baden Elementary Gwynn Park High Gwynn Park Middle William S. Schmidt Education Center 75

Section 4 76

Community Analysis Neighborhood/Community Analysis County demographic and household estimates obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey were analyzed by Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) 1 to gain some understanding about the characteristics of the communities in which county public schools are located. Seven PUMASs make up Prince George s County. Based on the American Community Survey data used, the communities in which the county schools are located were organized by PUMA into 3 categories: stabilized, target for revitalization, and growth areas. Stabilized Neighborhoods within the stabilized area have household incomes greater than the countywide median. Within this area, the percentage of married-couple families as well as owneroccupied homes are greater than the county median. PUMAs 5 and 6 are categorized as stabilized areas. However there are some exceptions. Some neighborhoods within these PUMAs could also be considered growth areas. PUMAs 5 and 6 include portions of the Developing Tier and the majority of the Rural Tier. The Developing Tier contains almost half the county s households as well as employment. Policies as provided in the 2002 Approved General Plan encourage low-to-moderate-density, transit-and pedestrian-oriented development; commercial uses limited to designated Centers; and the preservation and enhancement of environmental features within the Developing Tier. The Rural Tier is characterized by farms, extensive woodlands, streams, landscapes, and diverse wildlife habitat. Although development activity includes widely-dispersed, large-lot residential home sites and some mining, preservation of the environmentally sensitive features of the Tier is a priority for future development. The Rural Tier policies address retaining or enhancing environmentally sensitive features and agricultural resources; designing future development to retain and enhance rural setting; providing for a transportation system that helps protect open space, rural character, and environmental features and resources; and assigning minimal priority to public sector capital improvements. Target for Revitalization Revitalization efforts are not limited to physical improvements only, but also include a community s social and economic development. Neighborhoods within the targeted revitalization area generally have incomes lower than the county s median and vacancy rates are typically higher than the median. Within this area, there is more renter-occupied housing and dwelling units built prior to 1960 than in the stabilized and growth areas. PUMAs 1, 3, 4, 7 are categorized as target for revitalization areas. As is the case for the stabilized area category, there are exceptions within the target for revitalization area. Neighborhoods within this area could also be categorized as growth and stabilized areas. The PUMAs that make up the target for revitalization areas are within the Developed Tier. This Tier contains more than half of the county s households and nearly half the 1 PUMAs are areas that define the extent of territory for which the U.S. Census Bureau tabulates public use microdata sample (PUMS) data. 77

Section 4 employment. The Developed Tier s policies as provided in the 2002 Approved General Plan emphasize medium to high density, quality infill and redevelopment, restoration and preservation, enhancement of the environment, the provision of transit and pedestrian facilities as well as maintaining and provided needed public facilities. Fourteen of the Fifteen METRO and MARC stations within the county are located within the Developed Tier and Transit Oriented Development is planned around the METRO and MARC stations within this area. Growth Major developments within this area are Konterra, The Brick Yard, the University of Maryland property and planned future development along MD Route 1. Konterra which is to be located on both sides of I-95 is proposed as a future center with a mix of residential, retail, and employment uses in the 2002 Approved General Plan. PUMA 2 is classified as a growth area. This area lies within the Developed and Developing Tiers. Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) is within the growth area. Although PUMA 2 is identified as a growth area due to the various large-scale developments planned within this area, similar to communities within PUMAs 1-6, many neighborhoods within this area can also be categorized as stabilized or/and target for revitalization areas. In fact there are also preservation areas within PUMA 2 such as the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC). Neighborhoods within this growth area have a higher percentage of married couple families and higher household incomes than the county median. This area also has a higher vacancy rate and more renter-occupied housing than the median. The percentage of dwelling units built prior to 1960 in this area is higher than the stabilized area but less than the target for revitalization area and the county median. 78

School Name Type of Neighborhood Prince George's County Public Schools - School/Community Location BRAC Council Type of PFA PUMA School Name School District Neighborhood Adelphi revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 PFA BRAC School PUMA Council District Carrollton revitalization Yes Yes 3 3 Allenwood revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 Apple Grove stabilized Yes Yes 6 8 Ardmore stabilized Yes Yes 5 5 Arrowhead stabilized No No 5 6 Avalon stabilized Yes Yes 6 8 Baden stabilized No No 6 9 Barnaby Manor revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 Beacon Heights revitalization Yes Yes 3 3 Berwyn Heights revitalization Yes Yes 1 3 Bladensburg revitalization Yes Yes 3 5 Bond Mill growth Yes Yes 2 1 Bradbury Heights revitalization Yes Yes 4 7 Brandywine stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Calverton growth Yes Yes 2 1 Capitol Heights revitalization Yes Yes 4 7 Carmody Hills revitalization Yes Yes 4 7 Carole Highlands revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 Catherine T Reed growth Yes Yes 2 4 Cesar Chavez revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 Cherokee Lane revitalization Yes Yes 1 1 Chillum revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 Clinton Grove stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Columbia Park revitalization Yes Yes 4 5 Concord revitalization Yes Yes 4 7 Cool Spring revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 Cooper Lane revitalization Yes Yes 3 5 Cora L Rice revitalization Yes Yes 4 5 Deerfield Run growth Yes Yes 2 1 District Heights revitalization Yes Yes 4 6 Dodge Park revitalization Yes Yes 4 5 Doswell E Brooks revitalization Yes Yes 4 7 Excel Academy Public Charter revitalization Yes Yes 3 4 Flintstone revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 Forest Heights revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 79

School Name Type of Neighborhood PFA BRAC School PUMA Council District Fort Foote stabilized Yes Yes 6 8 Fort Wash. Forest stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Francis Scott Key revitalization Yes Yes 4 7 Francis T Evans stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Gaywood growth Yes Yes 2 3 Gladys N Spellman revitalization Yes Yes 3 5 School Name J Frank Dent Templeton Thomas Claggett Thomas S Stone Tulip Grove Turning Point Aca Type of Neighborhood PFA BRAC School PUMA Council District revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 revitalization Yes Yes 3 5 revitalization Yes Yes 4 7 revitalization Yes Yes 3 2 stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 growth Yes Yes 2 5 Glassmanor revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 Glenarden Woods revitalization Yes Yes 4 5 Glenn Dale stabilized Yes Yes 5 3 Glenridge revitalization Yes Yes 3 3 Greenbelt growth Yes Yes 2 4 Heather Hills stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 High Bridge stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 Highland Park revitalization Yes Yes 4 7 Hillcrest Heights revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 Hollywood revitalization Yes Yes 1 1 Hyattsville revitalization Yes Yes 3 2 Imagine Foundations PCS stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 Indian Queen stabilized Yes Yes 6 8 University Park revitalization Yes Yes 1 3 Valley View revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 Vansville growth Yes Yes 2 1 Waldon Woods stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Whitehall stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 William Beanes revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 William Paca revitalization Yes Yes 4 5 Woodmore stabilized No No 5 6 Woodridge revitalization Yes Yes 3 3 Yorktown stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 Annapolis Road revitalization Yes Yes 3 5 Bladensburg High revitalization Yes Yes 3 5 Bowie High stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 80

School Name Type of Neighborhood PFA BRAC School PUMA Council District Central High revitalization Yes Yes 4 6 Charles Herbert Flowers High Community-Based Classroom Croom Vocational High Crossland Evening High stabilized Yes Yes 5 5 N/A Yes Yes N/A N/A stabilized No No 5 9 stabilized Yes Yes 6 8 Crossland High stabilized Yes Yes 6 8 Dr Henry A Wise Jr High stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 DuVal High growth Yes Yes 2 4 Eleanor Roosevelt High Fairmont Heights High growth Yes Yes 2 4 revitalization Yes Yes 4 5 Forestville High revitalization Yes Yes 7 6 Frederick Douglass High stabilized No No 6 9 Friendly High stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Green Valley Instructional Ctr revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 Gwynn Park High stabilized No No 6 9 High Point High growth Yes Yes 2 1 Largo Evening High/Saturday stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 Largo High stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 Laurel High growth Yes Yes 2 1 School Name Northwestern Evening/Saturday Type of Neighborhood PFA BRAC School PUMA Council District revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 Northwestern High revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 Oxon Hill High revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 Parkdale High revitalization Yes Yes 3 3 Potomac High revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 Suitland High revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 Surrattsville High stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Tall Oaks Vocational Buck Lodge Middle Charles Carroll Middle Drew-Freeman Middle Dwight D Eisenhower Middle Ernest Everett Just Middle stabilized No No 5 6 revitalization Yes Yes 1 1 revitalization Yes Yes 3 3 revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 growth Yes Yes 2 1 stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 James H Harrison growth Yes Yes 2 1 James Mc Henry stabilized Yes Yes 5 5 James Ryder Randall stabilized Yes Yes 6 8 John H Bayne revitalization Yes Yes 4 6 Judge Sylvania W Woods Sr Judith P Hoyer Early CS revitalization Yes Yes 4 5 revitalization Yes Yes 3 5 81

School Name Type of Neighborhood PFA BRAC School PUMA Council District Kenilworth stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 Kenmoor revitalization Yes Yes 4 5 Kettering stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 Kingsford stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 Lake Arbor stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 Lamont revitalization Yes Yes 3 3 Langley Pk- McCormick revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 Laurel growth Yes Yes 2 1 Lewisdale revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 Lincoln PCS revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 Longfields revitalization Yes Yes 4 6 Magnolia growth Yes Yes 2 3 Marlton stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Mary Harris "Mother" Jones revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 Mattaponi stabilized No No 6 9 Melwood stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Montpelier growth Yes Yes 2 1 Mt Rainier revitalization Yes Yes 3 2 North Forestville revitalization Yes Yes 4 6 School Name Type of Neighborhood PFA BRAC School PUMA Council District Northview stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 Oakcrest revitalization Yes Yes 4 7 Oaklands growth Yes Yes 2 1 Overlook revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 Oxon Hill revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 Paint Branch revitalization Yes Yes 1 3 Panorama revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 Patuxent stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 Perrywood stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 Phyllis E Williams stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 Pointer Ridge stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 Port Towns revitalization Yes Yes 3 5 Potomac Landing stabilized Yes Yes 6 8 Princeton revitalization Yes Yes 7 9 Ridgecrest revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 Riverdale revitalization Yes Yes 3 3 Robert Frost revitalization Yes Yes 3 3 Robert R Gray revitalization Yes Yes 4 5 Rockledge stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 82

School Name Type of Neighborhood PFA BRAC School PUMA Council District Rogers Heights revitalization Yes Yes 3 5 Rosa L Parks revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 Rosaryville stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Rose Valley stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Samuel Chase revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 Scotchtown Hills growth Yes Yes 2 1 Seabrook stabilized Yes Yes 5 3 Seat Pleasant revitalization Yes Yes 4 7 Skyline revitalization Yes Yes 7 9 Springhill Lake revitalization Yes Yes 1 4 Suitland revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 Tayac stabilized Yes Yes 6 8 Accokeek Academy Andrew Jackson Academy stabilized No No 6 9 revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 Beltsville Academy growth Yes Yes 2 1 Benjamin D Foulois Academy Benjamin Stoddert Middle Benjamin Tasker Middle revitalization Yes Yes 7 9 revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 Edgar Allan Poe revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 School Name Type of Neighborhood PFA BRAC School PUMA Council District Greenbelt Middle revitalization Yes Yes 1 4 Gwynn Park Middle Isaac J Gourdine Middle John Hanson French Imm John Hanson Montessori stabilized No No 6 9 stabilized Yes Yes 6 8 revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 Kettering Middle stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 Martin Luther King Jr Middle Nicholas Orem Middle Robert Goddard French Immersion Robert Goddard Montessori Samuel Ogle Middle Samuel P Massie Academy Stephen Decatur Middle growth Yes Yes 2 1 revitalization Yes Yes 1 2 growth Yes Yes 2 4 growth Yes Yes 2 4 stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Thomas G Pullen growth Yes Yes 2 5 Thurgood Marshall Middle William W Hall Elementary William Wirt Middle revitalization Yes Yes 7 8 revitalization Yes Yes 4 7 revitalization Yes Yes 3 3 C Elizabeth Rieg stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 Chapel Forge ECC stabilized Yes Yes 5 4 83

School Name Frances R Fuchs ECC H Winship Wheatley ECC James E Duckworth Type of Neighborhood PFA BRAC School PUMA Council District growth Yes Yes 2 1 revitalization Yes Yes 4 6 growth Yes Yes 2 1 Jessie B Mason revitalization Yes Yes 7 7 Margaret Brent revitalization Yes Yes 3 3 Tanglewood stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Off-Site PreKindergarten G James Gholson Middle N/A Yes Yes N/A N/A revitalization Yes Yes 4 5 Hyattsville Middle revitalization Yes Yes 3 2 School Name William S. Schmidt Education Center James Madison Middle Type of Neighborhood PFA BRAC School PUMA Council District stabilized No No 6 9 stabilized Yes Yes 6 9 Kenmoor Middle revitalization Yes Yes 4 5 Oxon Hill Middle stabilized Yes Yes 6 8 Thomas Johnson Middle Walker Mill Middle stabilized Yes Yes 5 5 revitalization Yes Yes 4 6 Barack Obama stabilized Yes Yes 5 6 Howard B. Owens Center growth Yes Yes 2 4 84

Community Analysis School Planning and the Approved General Plan The 2002 Prince George s County Approved General Plan addresses the provision of needed public facilities in locations that efficiently serve the county s population at the present time and in the future. The plan policies and strategies seek to design and site public facilities in accordance with appropriate development patterns. The General Plan s strategies encourage the public sector s provision of new or renovated public facilities needed to serve existing and future development as a high priority in the Developed Tier. A strategy in this tier as well as in the Developing Tier is to consider multilevel schools, two or more stories where feasible, where land is limited rather than building outward. The adaptive reuse of underutilized/obsolete public, commercial and industrial buildings to provide school space and the co-location of compatible and complementary facilities in future planning efforts should be sought and considered. The placement of public schools in nontraditional areas such as designated centers near major public transit or high-rise residential complexes should be considered. In an attempt to offer opportunities for educational partnerships, high schools may be sited in business districts near health care centers and governmental complexes. It is an objective of the General Plan to achieve a school system in which each school is operating at 100 percent or less of its capacity. In addition to the Prince George s County Approved General Plan there are numerous Community and Countywide Plans that are effective planning tools within Prince George s County. These plans are identified on the following pages. Some of these plans were approved more than 20 years ago and others as recently as 2010. Plans are periodically considered for study and when appropriate presented for approval. Recommendation It is recommended that the Prince George s County Public Schools Board of Education amend Board Policy 7100 to establish a standard minimum site size for new school construction, rehabilitation, and the adaptive reuse of structures for schools within urban and suburban settings. Additionally, it is recommended that the Board of Education review standards for school facilities and sites to identify building footprints that support education programs in multi-story buildings. In addition to the Prince George s County Approved General Plan there are numerous Community and Countywide Plans that are effective planning tools within Prince George s County. These plans are identified on the following pages. Some of these plans were approved more than 20 years ago and others as recently as 2010. Plans are periodically considered for study and when appropriate presented for approval. 85

86

Facility Inventory and Evaluation Basic Data and Current and Projected Usage PGCPS has 192 public buildings serving 126,671 (September 30, 2010) students in prekindergarten through grade 12. The total number of schools by grade organization and/or specialty program is summarized in Section I. The information that follows on IAC/PSCP Form 101.1, provides details about each of schools and their current and projected usage. The information includes the following: name and address, grades served, SRC, fall 2010 enrollment, percent utilization, acreage, building data (date of original construction and additions and square footage), an assessment of the physical condition, and comments (when appropriate). Schools With Less Than Schools With Between 60% Schools With Over 100% 60% Utilization and 100 % Utilization Utilization 10 127 55 Method Utilized to Evaluate Physical Condition In September 2007, PGCPS retained the services of Parsons 3D/International (Parsons 3D/I) to update the General Facility Condition Assessment on 184 facilities totaling 15.3 million gross square feet. The assessment considered the various building systems that make up a facility; for example, foundation systems, structural systems, roofing systems, and HVAC systems. The work involves gathering information such as make, model, and installation dates of various systems. Deficiencies are generated at a systems level and are based on the system installation date and the expected useful life of the system. This assessment includes elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and other facilities. The total estimated cost to abate all deficiencies at the time of the assessment was $2.12 billion. Assessment of the Physical Condition of PGCPS Facilities All of the school buildings and support facilities were studied by Parsons/3D/International in 2000. PGCPS then contracted with Parsons/3D/International to conduct a Level 1, General Facility Condition Assessment on 37 schools identified as First Priority Projects (51-100 years old). The purpose of the study was to help define deferred maintenance and capital renewal funding requirements. This assessment included elementary, middle, and high schools and other facilities, which totaled approximately 2.8 million gross square feet. The estimated replacement cost of these buildings was valued at $739.9 million. Parsons/3D/International utilized a Facility Condition Index (FCI), which represents the relative physical condition of facilities (cost of needed repairs divided by replacement cost). An FCI greater than 75% is considered Poor by industry standards. Schools with a rating of 40% to 75 % are considered Fair and those with as rating of 40% or lower are considered Good. These ratings are shown on IAC/PSCP Form 101.1 in the 2008 Facility Assessment Physical Condition column. 87

Section 5 The condition of each facility was summarized by a Facility Condition Index (FCI) Formula: Needed Repairs ($) / Replacement Value ($) = FCI Number of Facilities Assessed Condition Facility Condition Index (FCI) 25 Good <40% 150 Fair 40% to 75% 9 Poor >75% The purpose of this assessment was to assist PGCPS define deferred maintenance and capital renewal funding requirements. The condition of the school is a factor in determining their priority for major renovation or replacement in each year s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). To date, the 12 schools receiving the highest FCI score have either been included in recent CIP submissions for replacement or major renovation or been consolidated. Subsequent CIP submissions will address additional facilities in priority order. Identification of Type of Neighborhood/Community PGCPS has a close working relationship with Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC). This has enabled the development of coordinated and integrated activities related to site selection, project identification, and community development and/or redevelopment. The information that follows lists the 192 public schools and some additional programs serving public school students in the PGCPS system. The assessment of each neighborhood/community served by the public school was undertaken by the staff of the MNCPPC. They categorized each as either stabilized, target for revitalization, growth, or non-growth. Category of Neighborhood/Community Number of Public Schools Growth 24 Revitalization 103 Stabilized 65 TOTAL 192 88

Facility Inventory and Evaluation BRAC Schools The information in the previous section shows that all of the public schools in Prince George s County are considered by the Maryland Department of Planning to be BRAC schools with the exception of the 11 schools identified outside the priority funding areas detailed on pages 75 and 76. The list was provided by MDP dated 3/25/2010. As PGCPS moves ahead with the capital improvement program the four polices approved by the IAC related to BRAC schools will be considered when appropriate. The four policies are: (1) requests for BRAC-eligible schools may be submitted after the December deadline for the submission of CIP amendments; (2) a BRAC-eligible project that is requested for planning approval may receive additional consideration in the assessment of planning priorities; (3) a capacity project that has a verifiable linkage to BRAC may be eligible for additional State funding after the completion of construction if an increase of enrollment can be attributed to a BRAC change; and (4) a request of a new or replacement BRACeligible project that does not meet the IAC s normal enrollment justification criteria for State participation can still be eligible for State participation under and alternative method of determining future enrollment and State participation. List of Former Public Schools Still Utilized by PGCPS Several former school buildings that served public school students have been closed, and are now in use for other educational purposes. These buildings are serving a useful purpose and a public presence remains in the communities where these former schools are located. As enrollments change these buildings could, if necessary and appropriate, be reactivated as a public school building in the future. It would of course be necessary to fully renovate these older buildings to meet the educational and building code requirements prior to reactivation. There are currently six former public school buildings that are utilized by PGCPS. There are several former public schools that have been closed, but no decisions have been made regarding their subsequent use. As the various reuses of these former school buildings are reviewed and studied, some may have a role to play in supporting the efforts of PGCPS. See the information that follows for a listing of the former public schools currently utilized by PGCPS. 89

Section 5 School/Building Name Sasscer Administration Building Usage Administration Oxon Hill Staff Development Center Administration G. Gardner Shugart Administration John Carroll John E. Howard Mathew Henson Middleton Valley Administration Administration Administration Swing space for Avalon ES Temporary/Relocatable Classrooms PGCPS has an inventory of temporary/relocatable classrooms. Some of these units are approximately 40 years old. Some of them have been in place for over 25 years. PGCPS owns 466 relocatable classrooms. In addition to these buildings, there are 19 classrooms, which are owned by the State of Maryland and on loan (at no cost) to PGCPS. There are a total of 482 classrooms, 39 of which are used for non-instructional purposes. Assuming an average class size of 24 brings the total number of PGCPS students being educated in temporary/relocatable classrooms to 10,632. This represents 8.4% of the 126,671 students enrolled in PGCPS in the 2010- school year. It is the goal of PGCPS to reduce the number of these temporary/relocatable classrooms used by the teachers and students in the school system. A careful evaluation annually of the short-and-long term enrollment projections and school utilization will enable decisions to be made to reduce their usage. Many of these units are in poor condition and some have been demolished due to age, obsolescence, and where repairs are not fiscally justifiable. There are no plans to purchase any new or replacement units, at this time, for the - school year. See below the individual schools and the number of temporary/relocatable classrooms at each location. 90

Facility Inventory and Evaluation School # of Temps Total Sq. Ft. School # of Temps Total Sq. Ft. Adelphi 1 720 High Bridge 3 2160 Allenwood 1 720 High Point 4 2880 Annapolis Road 7 5040 Hollywood 4 2880 Ardmore 1 720 Howard B. Owens 3 2160 Arrowhead 4 2880 Hyattsville Elem. 4 2880 Beacon Heights 7 5040 Hyattsville Middle 11 7920 Beltsville 9 6480 James Duckworth 1 720 Benjamin Tasker 5 3600 James Harrison 3 2160 Bladensburg Elem. 1 720 James Madison 6 4320 Bowie High 12 8640 James McHenry 3 2160 Bowie High Annex 4 2880 James R. Randall 3 2160 Brandywine Elem. 1 720 Jesse Mason 1 720 Buck Lodge 2 1440 John Hanson Bldg 8 5760 C.E. Rieg 6 4320 Kenmoor MS 5 3600 Calverton 11 7920 Lake Arbor 2 1440 Carole Highlands 4 2880 Lamont 6 4320 Carrollton 8 5760 Langley Park-McCormick 2 1440 Central 11 7920 Laurel Elem. 13 1440 Cesar Chavez 2 1440 Laurel High 9 6480 Charles Carroll 9 6480 Lewisdale 7 5040 Charles Flowers 22 15840 Margaret Brent 2 1440 Cherokee Lane 3 2160 Martin L. King 5 3600 Clinton Grove 4 2880 Montpelier 2 1440 Cooper Lane 1 720 Nicholas Orem 4 2880 Croom 2 1440 Northview 3 2160 Deerfield Run 3 2160 Northwestern 18 12960 Dodge Park 4 2880 Oaklands 2 1440 Drew Freeman 3 2160 Oxon Hill Elem. 3 2160 Eleanor Roosevelt 21 15120 Oxon Hill High 12 8640 Fort Foote 4 2880 Oxon Hill Middle 3 2160 Frances Fuchs 12 8640 Panorama 1 720 Francis T. Evans 3 2160 Parkdale 4 2880 Frederick Douglass 4 2880 Port Towns 3 2160 Friendly 5 3600 Riverdale 4 2880 Gaywood 7 5040 Robert Frost 2 1440 Gladys Spellman 1 720 Robert Goddard 7 5040 Glenarden Woods 2 1440 Rockledge 3 2160 Glenn Dale 3 2160 Rogers Heights 5 3600 Glenridge 3 2160 Rosa Parks 3 2160 Gwynn Park High 7 5040 Samuel Chase 1 720 H. W. Wheatley 14 10080 Scotchtown Hills 1 720 Heather Hills 2 1440 Seat Pleasant 1 720 Henry Ferguson 4 2880 Springhill Lake 8 5760 91

Section 5 School # of Total Sq. # of Total Sq. School Temps Ft. Temps Ft. Stephen Decatur 2 1440 Waldon Woods 1 720 Suitland High Annex 6 4320 Whitehall 3 2160 Tall Oaks 2 1440 William Beanes 1 720 Templeton 3 2160 William Schmidt Center 5 3600 Thomas Johnson 3 2160 William Wirt 5 3600 Thomas Stone 3 2160 Woodridge 1 720 State owned relocatables are identified on IAC Form 102.6, at the end of this section. This information is from the FY CIP submission Site Bank The PGCPS has had for many years a site bank that can be utilized for new schools in the future, when and if needed. The principle is to acquire potential school sites early in the residential development or pre-development phase to set aside a selected site (a) in a good location based upon anticipated development, (b) of an appropriate size, (c) meeting the criteria for the approval for a school site, (d) meeting the criteria for reasonable development costs, and (e) that can be purchased at a reasonable price before development drives the acreage costs higher. Some of the sites have been in the site bank for many years. Others have been acquired within the past 3-5 years. Some sites are required to be offered and/or set aside by developers as part of the County s approval process for large scale for residential development. PGCPS currently has 24 school sites in its site bank. See below for a listing of the sites and the areas where each is located. 92

Facility Inventory and Evaluation Name of Site Location Aylor-Brinkly Brinkley Road west of Middlefield Road Bock Road West side of Bock Road at Rosecroft Bloulevard Branchville 51 st Avenue Brandywine-Marlton No Street Address Croom Settlement East side of Croom Road at St. Thomas Church Road Enterprise Estates Kencrest Drive and Chantilly Lane Kettering #3 Whiteholm Drive Knollwood Deakins Hill Drive and Aster Lane Nothey Farm Piscataway Road south of Mary Catherine Estates Oak Park-Iverson South side of Iverson Street at Southview Drive Rosecroft East of Henson Valley Way Smith-Ewing East side of Mandan Road Smith-Ewing #2 South of Greenbelt Road on Mandan Road Snowden-Oaks Montpelier Drive and North Point Lane Springlake East side of Mitchellville Road Springlake #2 East side of Mitchellville Road Tantallon Square South Side of Swan Creek Road Thorne Drive Old Fort Road and Thorne Drive Van Dusen Road Van Dusen Road and Virginia Manor Road Sites Acquired through Development Conditions Beechtree Route 301 and Upper Marlboro Beechtree #2 Route 301 and Upper Marlboro Fairwood Fairwood Parkway Oak Creek South side of Iverson Street at Southview Drive Piscataway Piscataway Road and Temple Hill Road 93

FACILITIES INVENTORY Date: May 10, LEA: Prince George's County Public Schools School Name & Address Grades SRC Elementary Schools Prior Fall Percent 2008 Facility Enrollment Utilization Acreage Building Data Assessment Comments Sept. 30, 2010 Date SQ. FT. Physical Condition Accokeek PreK 8 1261 1238 98% 10 1963 21,276 POOR 14600 Berry Rd 1964 11,037 Accokeek, MD 20607 3108 1966 15,618 47,931 Adelphi PreK 6 451 510 113% 14.6 1954 19,863 GOOD 8820 Riggs Rd 1957 4,790 Adelphi, MD 20783 1630 1970 14,219 38,872 Allenwood PreK 6 449 455 101% 9.7 1967 39,179 FAIR 6300 Harley La 2000 9,507 Temple Hills, MD 20748 3815 48,686 Apple Grove PreK 6 535 493 92% 9.1 1967 44,467 FAIR 7400 Bellefield Ave 1998 7,375 Fort Washington, MD 20744 3399 51,842 94

Ardmore PreK 6 535 500 93% 9.1 1960 20,292 FAIR 9301 Ardwick Ardmore Rd 1965 5,965 Springdale, MD 20774 2508 1967 22,666 2000 5,124 54,047 Arrowhead PreK 6 434 436 100% 10 1966 44,193 FAIR 2300 Sansbury Rd 1978 15,730 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 2462 59,923 Avalon PreK 6 419 354 84% 11.3 1964 39,014 POOR 7302 Webster La 1971 6,013 Fort Washington, MD 20744 1099 45,027 Baden PreK 6 337 235 70% 19.6 1969 56,625 FAIR 13601 Baden Westwood Rd 56,625 Brandywine, MD 20613 8422 Barack Obama PreK 6 850 797 94% 55.23 2010 82,659 NEW SCHOOL Brooke Lane 82,659 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 Barnaby Manor PreK 5 673 507 75% 9.3 1964 39,013 FAIR 2411 Owens Rd 1986 1,824 Oxon Hill, MD 20745 3619 1991 7,776 2000 7,937 56,550 95

Beacon Heights PreK 6 360 409 114% 8.7 1965 26,742 GOOD 6929 Furman Pkwy 26,742 Riverdale, MD 20737 3016 Beltsville PreK 8 849 1,028 121% 19.9 1961 95,285 FAIR 4300 Wicomico Ave 1964 15,312 Beltsville, MD 20705 2673 110,597 Benjamin D. Foulois K 8 674 542 80% 16.2 1968 114,715 FAIR 4601 Beauford Rd 114,715 Morningside, MD 20746 4604 Berwyn Heights K 6 518 461 89% 10.4 1958 16,430 GOOD 6200 Pontiac St. 1962 10,375 Berwyn Heights, MD 20740 2756 1964 8,815 2002 9,767 45,387 Bladensburg Elem. PreK 6 691 666 96% 12.8 1990 62,050 GOOD 4915 Annapolis Rd 62,050 Bladensburg, MD 20710 1224 Bond Mill PreK 6 500 464 93% 9.8 1968 58,325 FAIR 16001 Sherwood Ave 58,325 Laurel, MD 20707 5437 96

Bradbury Heights PreK 6 714 559 78% 5 1929 14,902 GOOD 1401 Glacier Ave 1934 5,025 Capitol Heights, MD 20743 5135 1935 2,105 1941 8,221 1950 9,765 1971 7,400 1990 47,418 1991 79,457 79,457 Brandywine Elem. PreK 5 473 543 115% 12.3 1951 23,202 FAIR 14101 Brandywine Rd 1970 28,296 Brandywine, MD 20613 3003 1979 6,657 58,155 Calverton PreK 5 590 719 122% 5.9 1964 39,785 FAIR 3400 Beltsville Rd 1968 11,426 Beltsville, MD 20705 3312 2000 7,111 58,322 Capitol Heights PreK 6 357 228 64% 10 1959 26,521 FAIR 601 Suffolk Ave 1964 5,640 Capitol Heights, MD 20743 3028 1969 2,453 1975 10,150 44,764 97

Carmody Hills PreK 6 490 356 73% 9.2 1958 16,166 GOOD 401 Jadeleaf Ave 1961 8,675 Capitol Heights, MD 20743 2573 1963 4,690 1970 12,899 1997 4,536 2002 5,400 52,366 Carole Highlands PreK 6 535 698 130% 10 1953 20,061 GOOD 1610 Hannon St 1955 4,080 Takoma Park, MD 20912 0000 1969 3,382 1989 3,992 1995 22,610 54,125 Carrollton PreK 5 559 588 105% 9.8 1960 17,689 FAIR 8300 Quintana St 1962 13,978 New Carrollton, MD 20784 3420 1966 4,562 2000 9,613 45,842 Catherine T. Reed PreK 5 457 460 101% 10.4 1966 37,840 FAIR 9501 Greenbelt Rd 1968 13,722 Lanham, MD 20706 3303 1994 5,327 56,889 98

Cesar Chavez PreK 6 357 258 72% 6.3 1954 19,566 FAIR 6609 Riggs Road 1969 3,395 Hyattsville, MD 20782 1526 1999 7,105 30,066 Cherokee Lane PreK 6 406 453 112% 21.8 1962 25,654 FAIR 9000 25 th Ave 1964 18,665 Adelphi, MD 20783 1507 44,319 Chillum PreK 6 316 313 99% 9.8 1952 29,125 FAIR 1420 Chillum Rd 1955 7,517 Hyattsville, MD 20782 2435 1969 3,054 1978 5,250 44,946 Clinton Grove PreK 6 407 386 95% 13.7 1955 16,138 POOR 9420 Temple Hills Rd. 1961 4,861 Clinton, MD 20735 4433 1974 23,380 44,379 Columbia Park PreK 6 502 469 93% 8 1928 4,128 FAIR 1901 Kent Village Dr 1951 11,765 Landover, MD 20785 3927 1955 2,029 1962 9,119 1967 19,933 1974 6,534 1989 3,864 57,372 99

Concord PreK 6 390 364 93% 9.4 1968 43,984 FAIR 2004 Concord La 43,984 District Heights, MD 20747 1217 Cool Spring PreK 6 632 596 94% 21.74 1955 91,223 GOOD 8910 Riggs Rd. 1959 1,620 Adelphi, MD. 20783 1698 1965 29,068 1994 17,300 139,211 Cooper Lane PreK 6 495 502 101% 9.1 1962 23,203 FAIR 3817 Cooper La 1963 8,955 Landover Hills, MD 20784 2452 1966 9,324 1993 5,888 47,370 Cora L. Rice PreK 6 827 623 75% 32.5 2002 83,482 NEW SCHOOL 950 Nalley Road 83,482 Landover, MD 20785 4506 Deerfield Run PreK 6 583 584 100% 23.3 1975 72,390 FAIR 13000 Laurel Bowie Rd 72,390 Laurel, MD 20708 2136 100

District Heights PreK 6 517 459 89% 8.4 1955 13,630 FAIR 2200 County Rd 1957 6,687 District Heights, MD 20747 1344 1970 2,863 1979 25,384 1991 5,851 54,415 Dodge Park PreK 6 560 515 92% 10 1965 39,410 GOOD 3401 Hubbard Rd 1970 2,689 Landover, MD 20785 2057 1990 8,400 50,499 Doswell Brooks PreK 6 575 283 49% 10.6 1953 14,886 FAIR 1301 Brooke Rd 1959 4,463 Capitol Heights, MD 20743 4129 1966 23,011 1989 4,148 46,508 Edgar Allan Poe 6 8 456 17 4% 5.9 1967 32,888 GOOD 2001 Shadyside Ave 2002 12,513 Suitland, MD 20746 4805 45,401 Flintstone PreK 6 447 368 82% 8.2 1956 29,736 FAIR 800 Comanche Dr 1968 1,614 Oxon Hill, MD 20745 1910 1979 7,260 1990 8,400 47,010 101

Forest Heights PreK 6 314 251 80% 13.2 1953 28,690 FAIR 200 Talbert Dr 1955 5,681 Oxon Hill, MD 20745 1319 1968 1,600 35,971 Fort Foote PreK 6 413 384 93% 12.2 1960 20,249 FAIR 8300 Oxon Hill Rd 1961 11,665 Fort Washington, MD 20744 4719 1968 14,645 46,559 Fort Washington Forest PreK 5 411 313 76% 8.1 1961 22,560 FAIR 1300 Fillmore Rd 1961 5,348 Fort Washington, MD 20744 2935 1963 5,549 1969 12,191 45,648 Francis Scott Key PreK 6 736 621 84% 12.4 1998 86,814 NEW SCHOOL 2301 Scott Key Dr 86,814 District Heights, MD 20747 1231 Francis T. Evans PreK 5 457 596 130% 10 1970 57,742 FAIR 6720 Old Alexander Ferry Rd 57,742 Clinton, MD 20735 1741 Gaywood PreK 5 470 411 87% 8.3 1958 14,972 FAIR 6701 97th Ave 1961 10,981 Seabrook, MD 20706 2617 1966 16,463 42,416 102

Gladys N. Spellman PreK 6 604 554 92% 5.9 1955 16,955 GOOD 3324 64th Ave. 1970 5,987 Cheverly, MD 20785 1304 1990 36,558 59,500 Glassmanor PreK 6 335 264 79% 3.7 1960 18,870 FAIR 1011 Marcy Ave 1965 10,337 Oxon Hill, MD 20745 2526 1969 2,929 1994 3,792 35,928 Glenarden Woods PreK 6 472 454 96% 12.6 1960 20,435 FAIR 7801 Glenarden Pkwy 1964 14,583 Glenarden, MD 20706 1711 1968 17,043 52,061 Glenn Dale K 5 474 465 98% 11.2 1928 4,083 FAIR 6700 Glenn Dale Rd 1952 6,721 Glenn Dale, MD 20769 9407 1964 10,217 1967 13,367 2000 10,256 44,644 Glenridge K 6 799 793 99% 14.8 1954 44,293 FAIR 7200 Gallatin St 1955 38,782 Landover Hills, MD 20784 1620 1963 19,969 1965 6,153 109,197 103

Greenbelt PreK 6 569 592 104% 13 1993 67,500 NEW SCHOOL 66 Ridge Rd 67,500 Greenbelt, MD 20770 1737 Heather Hills K 6 339 377 111% 2 1967 32,749 FAIR 12605 Heming La 1993 4,076 Bowie, MD 20716 1117 36,825 High Bridge PreK 5 443 441 99% 9.9 1962 29,015 FAIR 7011 High Bridge Rd 1966 14,235 Bowie, MD 20720 5237 1974 11,393 54,643 Highland Park PreK 6 551 172 31% 10.4 1928 9,234 GOOD 6501 Lowland Dr 1952 7,179 Landover, MD 20785 4359 1958 9,392 1963 8,832 1965 11,144 1999 15,774 61,555 Hillcrest Heights PreK 5 520 487 94% 18.5 1952 51,632 FAIR 4305 22nd Pl 1999 19,168 Temple Hills, MD 20748 7000 70,800 104

Hollywood PreK 6 339 451 133% 8.7 1952 22,660 FAIR 9811 49th Ave 1954 7,572 College Park, MD 20740 1431 1978 10,268 40,500 Hyattsville PreK 6 406 512 126% 2.1 1935 13,261 FAIR 5311 43rd Ave 1962 6,629 Hyattsville, MD 20781 1904 1979 30,455 50,345 Indian Queen PreK 6 452 334 74% 10.2 1974 60,507 FAIR 9551 Fort Foote Rd 60,507 Fort Washington, MD 20744 5726 J. Frank Dent K 6 362 267 74% 10 1970 34,700 FAIR 2700 Corning Ave 1997 4,536 Fort Washington, MD 20744 5726 39,236 James H. Harrison PreK 6 333 323 97% 10 1969 56,925 FAIR 13200 Larchdale Rd 56,925 Laurel, MD 20708 1744 James McHenry PreK 5 584 642 110% 13.2 1964 24,698 FAIR 8909 McHenry La 1965 13,968 Lanham, MD 20706 4149 1970 7,238 1997 7,258 53,162 105

James Ryder Randall PreK 6 506 384 76% 10.1 1964 51,294 FAIR 5410 Kirby Rd 1967 5,397 Clinton, MD 20735 1421 1978 5,800 1990 8,400 70,891 John H. Bayne PreK 6 518 472 91% 4 1963 40,635 FAIR 7010 Walker Mill Rd 1970 2,768 Capitol Heights, MD 20743 4656 1991 6,376 49,779 Judge Sylvania W. Woods, Sr. PreK 6 719 606 84% 15.5 1999 84,660 NEW SCHOOL 3000 Church St 84,660 Glenarden, MD 20706 1757 Judith P. Hoyer PreK 6 176 119 68% 5.9 1922 3,726 FAIR 2300 Bellview Avenue 1930 4,782 Cheverly MD. 20785 1948 21,679 1951 5,614 35,801 Kenilworth PreK 5 494 411 83% 13.2 1963 39,435 FAIR 12520 Kembridge Dr 1967 18,888 Bowie, MD 20715 2759 58,323 Kenmoor PreK 6 447 412 92% 9 1966 42,559 FAIR 3211 82 nd Ave 1969 1,438 Landover, MD 20785 2708 43,997 106

Kettering PreK 5 589 367 62% 10 1969 50,376 FAIR 11000 Layton St 1998 7,275 Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 1527 57,651 Kingsford PreK 6 769 748 97% 10.08 1994 86,814 NEW SCHOOL 1401 Enterprise Rd 86,814 Mitchellville, MD 20721 2215 Lake Arbor PreK 6 790 813 103% 12.3 2002 76,842 NEW SCHOOL 10205 Lake Arbor Way 76,842 Mitchellville, MD 20721 3179 Lamont PreK 5 509 547 107% 9.8 1964 38,063 FAIR 7101 Good Luck Rd 1966 15,184 New Carrollton, MD 20784 3622 53,247 Langley Park McCormick PreK 6 541 548 101% 10 1958 26,822 FAIR 8201 15 th Ave 1979 37,372 Hyattsville, MD 20783 2429 64,194 Laurel PreK 6 493 553 112% 4.1 1974 59,444 FAIR 516 Montgomery St 59,444 Laurel, MD 20707 4204 107

Lewisdale PreK 5 540 632 117% 9.6 1953 19,245 FAIR 2400 Banning Pl 1956 9,219 Hyattsville, MD 20783 2712 1963 5,730 1979 15,225 1997 4,684 54,103 Longfields PreK 6 469 425 91% 11.7 1969 52,565 FAIR 3300 Newkirk Ave 52,565 Forestville, MD 20747 4360 Magnolia PreK 6 448 456 102% 10 1971 54,506 FAIR 8400 Nightingale Dr 54,506 Lanham, MD 20706 3929 Marlton PreK 6 489 452 92% 10 1974 60,270 FAIR 8506 Old Colony Dr S. 60,270 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 5099 Mary Harris Mother Jones PreK 6 802 810 101% 46.3 2002 76,842 NEW SCHOOL 2405 Techumseh St 76,842 Adelphi, MD 20783 1658 Mattaponi PreK 6 475 425 89% 24.5 1962 20,058 FAIR 11701 Duley Station Rd 1964 11,007 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 7955 1971 17,847 48,912 108

Melwood PreK 6 633 498 79% 10 1967 52,252 FAIR 7100 Woodyard Rd 1969 5,674 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 4316 2000 10,216 68,142 Montpelier PreK 6 609 701 115% 10 1968 51,026 FAIR 9200 Muirkirk Rd 2002 11,183 Laurel, MD 20708 2842 62,209 Mount Rainier PreK 6 357 356 100% 1.3 1977 38,092 GOOD 4011 32nd St 1990 3,150 Mt Rainier, MD 20712 1902 41,242 North Forestville PreK 6 412 347 84% 14.2 1954 14,716 FAIR 2311 Ritchie Rd 1956 17,461 Forestville, MD 20747 3735 1959 5,241 1966 13,389 1995 7,142 57,949 Northview Elementary PreK 5 869 829 95% 13.5 2007 77,646 NEW SCHOOL 3700 Northview Dr. 77,646 Bowie, MD 20716 Oakcrest PreK 6 451 369 82% 13.5 1966 32,127 FAIR 929 Hill Rd 1972 14,025 Landover, MD 20785 4336 46,152 109

Oaklands PreK 6 406 428 105% 10 1964 38,950 FAIR 13710 Laurel Bowie Rd 1970 2,477 Laurel, MD 20708 1360 41,427 Overlook PreK 5 542 318 59% 9 1969 32,780 FAIR 3298 Curtis Dr. 1993 5,888 Temple Hills, MD 20748 1218 1997 8,981 47,649 Oxon Hill PreK 6 353 348 99% 10 1975 63,729 FAIR 7701 Livingston Rd 63,729 Oxon Hill, MD 20745 1797 Paint Branch PreK 6 426 365 86% 12 1972 56,132 FAIR 5101 Pierce Ave 1972 2,889 College Park, MD 20740 2528 59,021 Panorama PreK 6 788 386 49% 10 1966 32,666 NEW SCHOOL 2002 Callaway St 2004 57,046 Temple Hills, MD 20748 89,712 Patuxent PreK 6 445 305 69% 10 1971 47,117 FAIR 4410 Bishopmill Dr. 2002 11,462 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 3411 58,579 Perrywood PreK 5 791 594 75% 45 2001 76,137 NEW SCHOOL 501 Watkins Park Dr. 76,137 Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 8801 110

Phyllis E. Williams PreK 6 538 408 76% 10 1976 60,270 FAIR 9601 Prince Pl. 1994 4,181 Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 1009 64,451 Pointer Ridge PreK 5 566 468 83% 10 1971 54,435 FAIR 1110 Parkington La 1998 7,543 Bowie, MD 20716 1718 61,978 Port Towns PreK 6 804 840 104% 15 2004 77,586 NEW SCHOOL 4351 58th Ave 77,586 Bladensburg, MD 20710 1903 Potomac Landing PreK 5 517 502 97% 10 1977 56,300 FAIR 12500 Ft. Washington Rd 1989 4,296 Fort Washington, MD 20744 6263 60,596 Princeton PreK 6 459 409 89% 12.1 1960 19,398 FAIR 6101 Baxter Dr. 1963 11,986 Suitland, MD 20746 4509 1971 3,443 1997 6,510 41,337 Ridgecrest PreK 6 718 621 86% 7.6 1954 14,854 GOOD 6120 Riggs Rd 1970 35,815 Hyattsville, MD 20783 3103 2002 17,877 68,546 111

Riverdale PreK 6 543 715 132% 3.1 1978 64,800 FAIR 5006 Riverdale Rd 64,800 Riverdale, MD 20737 1916 Robert Frost PreK 6 341 297 87% 6.6 1968 48,852 FAIR 6419 85th Ave 48,852 New Carrollton, MD 20784 3301 Robert R. Gray PreK 6 833 388 47% 8.1 2001 74,520 NEW SCHOOL 4949 Addison Rd 74,520 District Heights, MD 20743 1111 Rockledge PreK 5 456 527 116% 10 1968 56,252 FAIR 7701 Laurel Bowie Rd 56,252 Bowie, MD 20715 1002 Rogers Heights PreK 6 604 620 103% 7.5 1959 30,566 FAIR 4301 58th Ave 1961 9,532 Bladensburg, MD 20710 1903 1978 5,802 1989 5,898 1997 4,790 56,588 Rosa L. Parks PreK 6 750 764 102% 8.1 2006 81,705 NEW SCHOOL 6111 Ager Road 81,705 Hyattsville, MD 20782 112

Rosaryville PreK 6 790 544 69% 10.1 2002 76,200 NEW SCHOOL 9925 Rosaryville Rd 76,200 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 4837 Rose Valley PreK 6 436 373 86% 10.1 1968 56,252 FAIR 9800 Jacqueline Dr. 56,252 Fort Washington, MD 20744 2575 Samuel Chase PreK 5 392 328 84% 10.7 1962 23,581 POOR 5700 Fisher Rd 1967 19,043 Temple Hills, MD 20748 4710 42,624 Samuel P. Massie PreK 8 770 660 86% 51 2003 88,221 NEW SCHOOL 3301 Regency Pkwy 2003 9,022 Forestville, MD 20747 3812 97,243 Scotchtown Hills PreK 6 669 679 101% 10.57 1995 79,757 NEW SCHOOL 15950 Dorset Rd 79,757 Laurel, MD 20707 5313 Seabrook PreK 5 383 308 80% 6 1953 7,742 FAIR 6001 Seabrook Rd 1962 10,277 Seabrook, MD 20706 4017 1964 8,716 1967 12,969 39,704 113

Seat Pleasant PreK 6 360 308 86% 4.4 1971 42,888 FAIR 6411 G St. 42,888 Seat Pleasant, MD 20743 1714 Skyline PreK 6 310 230 74% 10 1966 37,225 FAIR 6311 Randolph Rd 37,225 Suitland, MD 20746 3741 Springhill Lake K 5 638 694 109% 10 1966 33,264 FAIR 6060 Springhill Dr 1969 14,956 Greenbelt, MD 20770 3103 1978 15,530 1998 7,243 70,993 Suitland PreK 6 790 502 64% 1995 6,413 NEW SCHOOL 4650 Homer Avenue 2005 69,920 Suitland, MD 20746 1514 76,333 Tayac PreK 6 586 392 67% 10 1955 15,649 FAIR 8600 Allentown Rd 1956 8,759 Fort Washington, MD 20744 1499 1962 5,551 1972 10,347 2000 7,552 47,858 Templeton PreK 5 609 616 101% 10 1968 56,910 FAIR 6001 Carters La 1998 6,522 Riverdale, MD 20737 3217 63,432 114

Thomas Claggett PreK 6 475 290 61% 10 1971 57,302 FAIR 2001 Addison Rd 1991 3,873 District Heights, MD 20747 1535 61,175 Thomas Pullen K 8 976 738 76% 20 1967 102,646 FAIR 700 Brightseat Rd. 1991 7,776 Landover, MD 20785 4720 110,422 Thomas Stone PreK 6 574 629 110% 6 1950 29,168 GOOD 4500 34th St. 1952 4,522 Mt Rainier, MD 20712 1600 1956 4,340 1974 22,210 1989 4,084 64,324 Tulip Grove PreK 5 411 314 76% 10.3 1964 39,146 POOR 2909 Trainor La 1971 3,129 Bowie, MD 20715 2332 42,275 University Park PreK 6 562 643 114% 5.1 1978 46,099 FAIR 4315 Underwood St. 1989 4,380 Hyattsville, MD 20782 1184 2000 5,785 56,264 Valley View PreK 6 538 528 98% 14.5 1968 48,231 FAIR 5500 Danby Ave 1990 4,200 Oxon Hill, MD 20745 3211 52,431 115

Vansville PreK 5 784 820 105% 10 2008 94,795 NEW SCHOOL 6813 Ammendale Rd. 94,795 Beltsville, MD 20705 Waldon Woods PreK 6 628 627 100% 10 1968 39,812 FAIR 10301 Thrift Rd 1989 3,964 Clinton, MD 20735 3730 2001 13,053 56,829 Whitehall K 5 411 449 109% 10 2005 38,583 NEW SCHOOL 3901 Woodhaven La 38,583 Bowie, MD 20715 William Beanes PreK 6 584 396 68% 12.2 1972 49,878 FAIR 5108 Dianna Dr. 1994 6,297 Suitland, MD 20746 2222 56,175 William W. Hall PreK 8 735 530 72% 53 2005 90,003 NEW SCHOOL 5200 Marlboro Pike 2005 9,997 Capitol Heights, MD 20743 100,000 William Paca PreK 6 676 446 66% 10.9 1963 33,812 FAIR 7801 Sheriff Rd 1964 8,256 Landover, MD. 20785 4403 1969 3,037 2000 9,763 54,868 116

Woodmore PreK 6 576 427 74% 21 1964 27,067 FAIR 12500 Woodmore Rd 1968 19,744 Mitchellville, MD 20721 4116 1995 9,290 56,101 Woodridge PreK 6 342 286 84% 6.7 1954 17,029 FAIR 5001 Flintridge Dr. 1963 2,520 Hyattsville, MD 20784 1651 1979 8,108 1994 4,030 31,687 Yorktown PreK 5 457 274 60% 10.2 1967 47,855 FAIR 7301 RaceTrack Rd 47,855 Bowie, MD 20715 1437 117

Middle Schools Andrew Jackson PreK 8 774 667 86% 15.4 1971 151,163 FAIR 3500 Regency Pkwy 151,163 Forestville MD 20747 3818 Annapolis Road Academy 9 10 100 81 81% 4.4 1939 26,658 FAIR 5150 Annapolis Rd 1953 880 Bladensburg, MD 20710 1409 1967 27,719 Housed at Bladensburg 1995 320 Instructional Center 55,577 Benjamin Stoddert 6 8 711 655 92% 13.3 1957 85,663 FAIR 2501 Olson St. 1963 6,039 Temple Hills, MD 20748 1601 1995 10,160 101,862 Benjamin Tasker 6 8 1079 1006 93% 15.3 1970 161,678 FAIR 4901 Collington Rd. 161,678 Bowie, MD 20715 2537 Buck Lodge 6 8 975 775 79% 24.5 1958 86,937 GOOD 2611 Buck Lodge Rd. 1966 24,964 Adelphi, MD 20783 1519 1981 6,644 1992 3,952 122,497 118

Charles Carroll 6 8 893 821 92% 17.1 1961 70,709 FAIR 6130 Lamont Dr. 1963 8,750 New Carrollton MD 20784 3418 1970 35,319 114,778 Drew Freeman 7 8 1050 781 74% 18.4 1960 142,413 FAIR 5100 Silver Hill Road 142,413 Suitland, MD 20746 1105 Dwight Eisenhower 7 8 1051 779 74% 20.2 1969 106,801 FAIR 13725 Briarwood Dr. 1974 33,150 Laurel, MD 20708 1301 139,951 Ernest Everett Just 7 8 935 757 81% 25 2002 122,220 NEW SCHOOL 1300 Campus Way North 122,220 Mitchellville, MD 20721 1856 Greenbelt 7 8 990 732 76% 33.8 1937 20,612 FAIR 8950 Edmonston Rd. 1945 15,917 Greenbelt, MD 20770 1099 1953 14,869 1957 12,892 1962 29,753 1969 47,082 141,125 119

Green Valley Alternative 9 10 420 76 18% 38 1956 27,882 FAIR 2215 Chadwick St 1960 11,203 Temple Hills, MD 20748 4232 1987 3,910 42,995 Gwynn Park 6 8 765 616 81% 20 1968 129,348 FAIR 8000 Dyson Rd. 129,348 Brandywine, MD 20613 7826 G. James Gholson 7 8 990 735 74% 32.5 2002 115,868 NEW SCHOOL 900 Nalley Road 115,868 Landover, MD 20785 4506 Hyattsville 7 8 829 663 80% 9.8 1938 15,343 FAIR 6001 42 nd Ave 1973 104,254 Hyattsville, MD 20781 1522 119,597 James Madison 7 8 850 927 109% 20 1972 129,348 FAIR 7300 Woodyard Rd. 129,348 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 4371 John Hanson Building PreK 8 500 466 93% 16.1 1956 70,099 FAIR 6360 Oxon Hill Rd. K 8 500 389 78% 1965 14,274 Oxon Hill MD 20745 855 1966 26,040 1991 3,600 1998 3,600 110,413 120

Kenmoor 7 8 795 705 89% 24.5 1973 128,381 FAIR 2500 Kenmoor Dr. 128,381 Landover, MD 20785 2709 Kettering 6 8 963 602 63% 20 1977 111,780 FAIR 65 Herrington Dr 1992 9,020 Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 1545 120,800 Isacc J. Gourdine 6 8 791 619 78% 16.7 1969 128,381 FAIR 8700 Allentown Rd. 1992 8,326 Fort Washington, MD 20744 1498 136,707 Martin L. King 6 8 794 687 87% 20 1972 127,516 GOOD 4545 Ammendale Rd. 127,516 Beltsville, MD 20705 1113 Nicholas Orem 6 8 825 659 80% 16.3 1962 95,329 GOOD 6100 Editors Park Dr. 1989 4,300 Hyattsville, MD 20782 1986 1993 6,068 105,697 Oxon Hill 7 8 816 608 75% 21.3 1972 106,801 FAIR 9570 Fort Foote Rd. 106,801 Fort Washington, MD 20744 5703 121

Robert Goddard K 8 496 585 118% 20.3 1964 106,701 FAIR 9850 Good Luck Rd. PreK 8 495 551 111% 1966 26,930 Seabrook MD 20706 3350 1136 133,631 Samuel Ogle 6 8 829 920 111% 9.4 1967 133,631 FAIR 4111 Chelmont La 133,631 Bowie, MD 20715 1328 Stephen Decatur 6 8 782 627 80% 16.4 1971 112,468 FAIR 8200 Pinewood Dr. 1994 7,602 Clinton, MD 20735 1487 120,070 Thomas Johnson 7 8 930 932 100% 13.7 1968 133,631 FAIR 5401 Barker Pl 133,631 Lanham MD 20706 2413 Thurgood Marshall 6 8 965 781 81% 20 1962 102,471 FAIR 4909 Brinkley Rd. 1964 7,977 Temple Hills, MD 20748 5299 1965 9,744 120,192 Walker Mill 7 8 816 759 93% 37.8 1970 129,348 FAIR 800 Karen Blvd 129,348 Capitol Heights, MD 20743 3314 William Wirt 6 8 816 755 93% 18.5 1964 106,318 FAIR 6200 Tuckerman St 106,318 Riverdale, MD 20737 1329 122

High Schools Bladensburg High 9 12 1923 1926 100 21.4 2005 304,000 NEW SCHOOL 4200 57th Street 304,000 Bladensburg MD 20710 Bowie High 9 12 2734 2912 107 29.5 1965 142,274 FAIR 15200 Annapolis Rd. 1968 128,882 Bowie, MD 20715 1897 1998 5,550 1998 3,600 2005 102,351 382,657 Belair Annex (Part of Bowie HS) 9 12 800 INCLUDED IN BOWIE HIGH SCHOOL 1963 102,351 3021 Belair Dr 102,351 Bowie MD 20715 2162 Central 9 12 1118 1057 95 60.5 1961 87,792 FAIR 200 Cabin Branch Rd. 1963 6,198 Capitol Heights, MD 20743 3205 1982 74,376 168,366 Charles Herbert Flowers 9 12 2200 2431 111% 39.1 2000 332,500 NEW SCHOOL 10001 Ardwick Ardmore Rd. 332,500 Springdale, MD 20774 2640 Croom 11 12 120 94 78% 27.6 1950 20,968 FAIR 8520 Duvall Rd. 12,727 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 9620 33,695 123

Crossland 9 12 1947 1412 73% 36 1963 136,717 FAIR 6901 Temple Hill Rd. 1965 52,045 Temple Hills, MD 20748 5207 1966 104,114 1975 20,400 313,276 Dr. Henry A. Wise 9 12 2606 2651 102% 55.23 2006 432,579 NEW SCHOOL 12650 Brooke Lane 432,579 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 Duval 9 12 2254 1644 73% 33.6 1960 121,976 FAIR 9880 Good Luck Rd. 1961 39,288 Lanham, MD 20706 3350 1967 53,096 2007 66,921 281,281 Eleanor Roosevelt 9 12 2164 2669 123% 40 1974 320,414 FAIR 7601 Hanover Pkwy 1990 7,044 Greenbelt, MD 20770 2099 327,458 Fairmont Heights 9 12 1139 776 68% 15.1 1951 56,579 FAIR 1401 Nye St. 1951 60,071 Capitol Heights MD 20743 1246 1956 31,628 1983 25,850 174,128 124

Forestville High 9 12 1319 797 60% 28.6 1965 107,345 FAIR 7101 Beltz Dr. 1965 37,198 Forestville, MD 20747 4635 1982 3,219 1988 7,185 1994 38,275 193,222 Frederick Douglass 9 12 1283 1133 88% 31 1960 116,717 FAIR 8000 Croom Rd. 1983 22,254 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 9748 1989 31,304 2003 14,142 184,417 Friendly 9 12 1505 1457 97% 64.5 1970 166,651 FAIR 10000 Allentown Rd. 1978 70,210 Fort Washington, MD 20744 3999 236,861 Gwynn Park High 9 12 1313 11736 89% 37.5 1956 26,400 FAIR 13800 Brandywine Rd. 1975 162,557 Brandywine, MD 20613 5802 1991 5,888 194,845 High Point 9 12 2253 2218 98% 38.8 1954 156,146 FAIR 3601 Powder Mill Rd. 1957 9,767 Beltsville, MD 20705 3599 1964 90,726 1967 40,732 1977 21,005 318,376 125

Largo 9 12 1849 1266 68% 40 1970 185,406 FAIR 505 Largo Rd. 1974 58,175 Upper Marlboro, MD 2077 2121 243,581 Laurel High 9 12 1870 1877 100% 43.8 1961 23,326 FAIR 8000 Cherry La 1965 142,274 Laurel, MD 20707 3663 1965 14,639 1972 9,091 1975 108,686 1983 1,748 299,764 Northwestern 9 12 2053 2457 120% 39.1 1964 22,000 NEW SCHOOL 7000 Adelphi Rd. 2000 355,000 Hyattsville, MD 20782 1497 377,000 Oxon Hill High 9 12 1902 1699 89% 38.5 1959 80,391 FAIR 6701 Leyte Dr. 1960 34,200 Oxon Hill, MD 20745 2199 1962 8,901 1981 63,830 1988 36,414 1989 5,682 1990 3,200 2002 21,700 1/04 32,130 243,048 126

Parkdale 9 12 2165* 2205 102% 34.9 1968 193,191 FAIR 6001 Good Luck Rd. 1970 61,774 Riverdale, MD 20737 3506 2008 10,236 265,201 400 Seat Addition Potomac 9 12 2104 1216 58% 45.8 1965 142,274 FAIR 5211 Boydell Ave 1968 59,318 Oxon Hill, MD 20745 3700 1981 8,538 2008 7,953 218,083 Suitland High 9 12 2635 2359 89% 24.5 1951 160,700 FAIR 5200 Silver Hill Rd. 1964 75,054 Forestville, MD 20747 2045 1982 14,440 1984 73,852 1956 70,993 395,039 Suitland Annex Bldg INCLUDED IN SUITLAND HIGH SCHOOL POOR Annex Bldg @ Suitland HS 5200 Silver Hill Rd 127

Surrattsville High 9 12 1195 857 72% 30 1960 98,546 FAIR 6101 Garden Dr. 1962 31,294 Clinton, MD 20735 2541 1984 15,010 1989 8,088 1990 4,200 2004 10,184 167,322 Tall Oaks 9 12 180 104 58% 14.2 1956 14,624 FAIR 2112 Church Rd. 1968 21,239 Bowie, MD 20721 3060 1984 3,498 39,361 128

Specialty Schools C. Elizabeth Rieg K 12 120 108 90% 9 1978 45,132 FAIR 15542 Peach Walker Dr. 45,132 Mitchellville, MD 20716 1412 Chapel Forge PreK 180 159 88% 10.1 1969 50,373 FAIR 12711 Milan Way 50,373 Bowie, MD 20715 1611 Frances Fuchs PreK 128 280 219% 12.1 1965 28,397 FAIR 11011 Cherry Hill Road 1966 18,236 Beltsville, MD 20705 3852 46,633 H. Winship Wheatley PreK 160 339 212% 17.7 1970 56,252 FAIR 8801 Ritchie Dr. 1972 22,695 Capitol Heights, MD 20743 4911 1983 6,935 85,882 James Duckworth K 12 120 83 69% 10 1978 41,480 FAIR 11201 Evans Trail 41,480 Beltsville, MD 20705 3903 Margaret Brent K 12 152 99 65% 11 1962 38,933 FAIR 5816 Lamont Terr 1970 3,268 New Carrollton, MD 20784 3541 1983 6,035 48,236 129

Tanglewood K 8 120 43 36% 10 1957 25,024 FAIR 8333 Woodyard Rd. 1964 10,349 Clinton, MD 20735 2042 1983 6,775 42,148 Other Educational Buildings Howard B. Owens N/A N/A N/A 7.3 1978 27,400 FAIR 9601 Greenbelt Rd. 27,400 Lanham MD 20801 William Schmidt Center N/A N/A N/A 449.6 1956 14,772 FAIR Outdoor Education Center 1959 2,611 18501 Aquasco Rd. 1975 2,912 Brandywine MD 20613 3915 1982 17,851 38,146 130

STATUS OF STATE-OWNED RELOCATABLES LEA: Prince George's County Public Schools FISCAL YEAR: FY DATE: 11/30/2010 SCHOOL BUILDING MFR/ CURRENT DATE ACTION JUSTIFICATION NUMBER NO. CLRM(S) USE SITED REQUESTED ¹ Berkshire Elementary 74F07 AMS/4 Relieve Overcrowding 08/1986 TBD TBD Green Valley Alternative 37409 WM/1 Relieve Overcrowding 06/1987 Retain in the same location Continued need due to overcrowding Middle Green Valley Alternative 37411 WM/1 Relieve Overcrowding 06/1987 Retain in the same location Continued need due to overcrowding Middle Green Valley Alternative 37413 WM/1 Relieve Overcrowding 06/1987 Retain in the same location Continued need due to overcrowding Middle Green Valley Alternative 38373 WM/1 Relieve Overcrowding 06/1987 Retain in the same location Continued need due to overcrowding Middle Green Valley Alternative 38375 WM/1 Relieve Overcrowding 06/1987 Retain in the same location Continued need due to overcrowding Middle Clinton Grove Elementary 257 PAR/1 Relieve Overcrowding 08/1995 Retain in the same location Continued need due to overcrowding Bowie High 260 PAR/1 Relieve Overcrowding 08/1995 Retain in the same location Continued need due to overcrowding Bowie High 261 PAR/1 Relieve Overcrowding 08/1995 Retain in the same location Continued need due to overcrowding Bowie High 533-62 GLO/6 Relieve Overcrowding 08/1997 Retain in the same location Continued need due to overcrowding Bowie High 264 PAR/1 Relieve Overcrowding 08/2003 Retain in the same location Continued need due to overcrowding 131

132

Demographic Data Overview Annually, the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) prepares district level projections of public school enrollment for each Maryland County and the City of Baltimore. These projections are developed using live birth and grade succession information along with other demographic trends which potentially impact public school enrollments. The Prince George s County Public Schools system is given an opportunity to review these projections and has chosen to adopt the projections. Information for PreK enrollment is not included in projections developed by MDP and represent local estimates. Of the components which drive public school enrollments in Prince George s County, the Maryland Department of Planning cites the strong births and the continuing influence of international migration countering losses due to domestic out-migration. Between 2000 and 2008, gains in foreign immigration actually exceeded the growth in net new residents in Prince George s County. While domestic out-migration resulted in a loss of nearly 66,800 residents during this period, foreign immigration to Prince George s County was approximately 31,700. Births during this period to women in Prince George s County totaled just over 102,000 offset by the death of 43,000 county residents. Historic Public School Enrollment Trends Public school enrollment in Maryland increased for the first years of this decade reaching a peak of just over 869,000 students in 2003. Since then, public school enrollments declined each year until being reversed with an increase in enrollment for the 2009-2010 school year. During the five years preceding this increase, public school enrollments in Maryland declined an average of about 5,000 students per year (or 0.6% of the 2003 enrollment). While K-12 public school enrollment in Prince George s County also declined each year since 2003, this decline has not been interrupted and has been at about twice the pace of the decline in the State overall. Since 2003, the average annual decrease has been approximately 1,500 students. This represents a decline of about 1.1% of the County s public school enrollment in 2003. As in the State of Maryland in general, some portion of this decline in public school enrollment is attributable to the changes in the age requirement for entry to Kindergarten and First Grade. This change, introduced in 2003, was phased in over four years. During each of these years, only eleven months of students were age eligible for entry and would directly account for about an 8% decline in the kindergarten enrollments. While Prince George s County adopted full-day kindergarten prior to the phase in of the revised age requirement, it nonetheless did experience an increased share of kindergarten school enrollment during this transition period. In Prince George s County, international migration and domestic out-migration have been major factors in the county s demographics and public school enrollments. See below for Public School Historical Enrollments 2000-2010. 133

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY TEN YEAR HISTORIC ENROLLMENT Grade 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ======== ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ====== ====== ELEM Ungraded 1,608 1,568 1,660 1,622 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PreK 2,950 2,951 3,047 3,572 4,130 4,934 5,618 6,640 5,770 6,139 6,424 Grade K 9,094 9,231 9,164 8,762 8,214 8,410 8,163 8,819 8,836 9,089 9,276 Grade 1 9,958 9,515 9,467 9,353 9,184 8,483 8,665 8,509 9,025 9,018 9,319 Grade 2 10,305 10,129 9,578 9,486 9,466 9,061 8,457 8,717 8,654 9,047 9,062 Grade 3 10,595 10,356 10,151 9,712 9,721 9,303 8,963 8,542 8,829 8,701 9,060 Grade 4 10,769 10,599 10,361 10,340 9,908 9,599 9,130 8,876 8,684 8,770 8,740 Grade 5 10,605 10,788 10,654 10,376 10,718 9,870 9,551 9,128 8,936 8,645 8,876 Grade 6 10,264 10,632 10,691 10,779 10,657 10,517 9,655 9,343 9,146 8,828 8,576 Grade 7 10,080 10,694 10,952 11,096 11,264 10,643 10,304 9,568 9,380 9,052 8,839 Grade 8 9,518 9,769 10,330 10,849 11,046 10,929 10,409 10,273 9,546 9,363 9,162 Grade 9 11,321 11,873 12,118 13,150 14,217 13,756 13,324 12,940 12,699 11,980 11,949 Grade 10 9,282 9,606 9,824 10,034 10,527 10,721 10,866 10,778 10,725 10,553 9,759 Grade 11 8,167 8,145 8,242 8,452 8,689 8,897 9,171 9,014 9,210 8,948 8,944 Grade 12 7,429 7,516 7,717 7,798 8,354 8,202 8,738 8,605 8,537 8,914 8,685 SEC Ungraded 1,778 1,667 1,483 1,904 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ======== ====== ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ====== ====== PreK 2,950 2,951 3,047 3,572 4,130 4,934 5,618 6,640 5,770 6,139 6,424 K 9,094 9,231 9,164 8,762 8,214 8,410 8,163 8,819 8,836 9,089 9,276 1/6 62,496 62,019 60,902 60,046 59,654 56,833 54,421 53,115 53,274 53,009 53,633 K/6 71,590 71,250 70,066 68,808 67,868 65,243 62,584 61,934 62,110 62,098 62,909 7/8 19,598 20,463 21,282 21,945 22,310 21,572 20,713 19,841 18,926 18,415 18,001 9/12 36,199 37,140 37,901 39,434 41,787 41,576 42,099 41,337 41,171 40,395 39,337 K/12 127,387 128,853 129,249 130,187 131,965 128,391 125,396 123,112 122,207 120,908 120,247 ======== ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ====== ====== PGCPS 133,723 135,039 135,439 137,285 136,095 133,325 131,014 129,752 127,977 127,047 126,671 134

Public School Historical Enrollments 2000-2010 135