1 Master Plan Update 18 Enrollment-based analysis of K-8 construction needs and District plans June 21, 2014 A new enrollment forecast (Jan. 14, 2014) means that the Cleveland Metropolitan School District must make a 36 percent cut in its state-funded Facilities Master Plan (June 21, 2010) for remaining K-8 construction. The state, which pays for 68 percent of most CMSD construction, requires as a condition of co-funding that the District’s Master Plan conform to the latest enrollment forecast for the school year in which construction is expected to be completed, now 2018-19. Pages 3-4 The School District has published a series of Draft Scenarios that propose new construction as well as repairs and improvements and some school closures in 12 geographic clusters as defined by the District. The BAC has analyzed the Draft Scenarios as if every suggested new school were built. In all, the suggested K-8 construction would have a capacity of about 7,000 students. That figure is close to the K-8 student capacity of 6,787 that the OFCC will co-fund. Page 5 The BAC’s analysis of the Draft Scenarios, using enrollment projections for the 2019 target year based on trends for each cluster from 2008 through 2014, found that the proposals would result in significant excess new or like-new K-8 capacity in at least three clusters and a significant shortage of such capacity in at least three clusters. Analysis of each neighborhood’s enrollment trend is important for properly focusing construction dollars, because the trends vary markedly across the District. Pages 5-7 The BAC analysis is based on straight-line projection until 2018-19 of the average annual K-8 enrollment change since 2008 in each of 12 geographic clusters defined by the School District. The BAC analysis of changes needed in the co-funded Master Plan is based primarily on enrollment data because projected enrollment is the determinant of the state’s Master Plan co-funding maximums. School enrollment data and trends show where parents have chosen to send their children to school, thereby encompassing many other variables, including geographic accessibility, safety, academic offerings, competition from charter schools, etc. However, the methodology has certain limitations. Pages 8-10
Transcript
1
Master Plan Update 18 Enrollment-based analysis of K-8 construction needs and District plans
June 21, 2014
A new enrollment forecast (Jan. 14, 2014) means that the Cleveland Metropolitan School District must make a 36 percent cut in its
state-funded Facilities Master Plan (June 21, 2010) for remaining K-8 construction. The state, which pays for 68 percent of most
CMSD construction, requires as a condition of co-funding that the District’s Master Plan conform to the latest enrollment forecast
for the school year in which construction is expected to be completed, now 2018-19. Pages 3-4
The School District has published a series of Draft Scenarios that propose new construction as well as repairs and improvements
and some school closures in 12 geographic clusters as defined by the District. The BAC has analyzed the Draft Scenarios as if
every suggested new school were built. In all, the suggested K-8 construction would have a capacity of about 7,000 students. That
figure is close to the K-8 student capacity of 6,787 that the OFCC will co-fund. Page 5
The BAC’s analysis of the Draft Scenarios, using enrollment projections for the 2019 target year based on trends for each cluster
from 2008 through 2014, found that the proposals would result in significant excess new or like-new K-8 capacity in at least three
clusters and a significant shortage of such capacity in at least three clusters.
Analysis of each neighborhood’s enrollment trend is important for properly focusing construction dollars, because the trends vary
markedly across the District. Pages 5-7
The BAC analysis is based on straight-line projection until 2018-19 of the average annual K-8 enrollment change since 2008 in
each of 12 geographic clusters defined by the School District. The BAC analysis of changes needed in the co-funded Master Plan
is based primarily on enrollment data because projected enrollment is the determinant of the state’s Master Plan co-funding
maximums. School enrollment data and trends show where parents have chosen to send their children to school, thereby
encompassing many other variables, including geographic accessibility, safety, academic offerings, competition from charter
schools, etc. However, the methodology has certain limitations. Pages 8-10
2
BAC analysis summary
2019 estimated
enrollment
range
Excess or
(deficit)
capacity
provided by
2014
Scenario
Custer 1 3094-3213 (582-701)
Cluster 2 2711-2791 (735-815)
Cluster 3 2313-2351 (513-551)
Cluster 4 1205-1272 13-80
Cluster 5 16541677 (704-727)
Cluster 6 1170-1264 106-200
Cluster 7 2123-2252 998-1127
Cluster 8 1506-1552 908-954
Cluster 9 840-858 92-110
Cluster 10 1151-1258 1242-1349
Cluster 11 1772-1795 600-623
Cluster 12 1670-1698 435-463
Detailed analysis and charts for each 12 K-8 neighborhood cluster. Pages 11-26
3
New enrollment forecast
The Cleveland Metropolitan School District’s construction program is guided by a Master Plan designed by the District with
the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, which pays for 68 percent of most Cleveland school construction costs.
Bond Accountability Commission reports on the Master
Plan have long been based on the idea that the construction
roadmap should be based on probable enrollment – that is, to
avoid wasting the public’s money, the District should not build
or renovate more school space than will be needed to
accommodate the number of students it will have when the
construction program concludes.
As a matter of policy, the OFCC agrees. That is why it
has released a consultant’s new forecast of how many students
the District will have in 2018-19, which for now is the nominal
year in which the construction program will end. That forecast,
one of a series dating back to 2002, predicts that the District
will have 32,443 students in 2018-19.
However, the District’s current Master Plan, devised in
2010 to conform to a 2009 forecast, would provide school space
for 35,639 students. Therefore, the OFCC requires a reduction
of 3,196 in the Master Plan’s student capacity as a condition for
co-funding the remainder of the District’s program, now in
Segments 5 and 6 of 10 segments. (Under the 2010 Plan,
construction would conclude with Segment 9; Segment 10
would consist entirely of demolitions.)
Reduction of co-funded K-8 building plan
Further, the OFCC subdivides its co-funding allotment
according to the number of students forecasted for grades K-8
and the number for grades 9-12. The latest forecast predicts
more high school students than did the projection on which the
2010 Master Plan was based, but considerably fewer K-8
students.
Available co-funded construction space
under enrollment forecast for 2018-19
Built or under way, Segments 1-5
K-8 students high school
students total
students
Segment 1 2437 2967 5404
Segment 2 3506 1005 4511
Segment 3 4101 0 4101
Segment 4 4326 0 4326
Segment 5 2251 2610 4861
Totals 16621 6582 23203
OFCC consultant's draft forecast for 2018-19 23408 9035 32443
Available unbuilt co-funded space 6787 2453 9240
Currently planned co-funded space
Master Plan of 2010 * 9793 1512 11305
Changes from 2010 Master Plan Required * cut 3006 cut 2065
Allowed add 941
* after cutting closed Giddings, deSauze K-8s
4
Elimination of schools from the Master Plan or reducing the planned size of schools in the co-funded Plan does not mean that
the District cannot build that capacity into the system; it simply means that the state won’t help pay for it. The District may build
whatever else it decides it can afford on its own.
In other words, the District may devise an unofficial Master Plan that includes more projects – both new buildings and partial
renovations – than are listed in the official Master Plan co-funded by the OFCC. Indeed, the BAC’s last report on the coming Master
Plan revision concluded that, due to the amount of co-funded capacity consumed in previous construction in neighborhoods where
enrollment has fallen below that capacity, cutting the official Master Plan by the required amount would leave other neighborhoods
without the amount of new/fully renovated student space needed according to the BAC’s projections of likely enrollment.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
As-built K-
8 student
capacity
Enrolled
now
Segment 5
Segment 4
Segment 3
Segment 2
Segment 1
and the number for grades 9-12.
The latest forecast predicts more
high school students than did the
projection on which the 2010
Master Plan was based, but
considerably fewer K-8 students.
The upshot is that the
District must reduce its 2010
building plan by the school space
to accommodate about 3,806 K-8
students, about 36 percent of the
remaining K-8 construction
planned under the Master Plan of
2010. However, two of the
schools in that Plan have been
closed, eliminating planned
construction for a total of 800
students, which leaves the District
with the task of reducing the Plan
by space for 3,006 K-8 students.
That is the equivalent of six to
seven schools at the typical size,
5
Goal is to avoid waste
From the standpoint of cost-effectiveness, the point is not simply to conform to the OFCC’s forecast, although that is required.
Rather, the goal in comparing the Master Plan with the indications of enrollment trends is to avoid waste of taxpayer-financed
construction bond proceeds that were authorized by voter approval of Issue 14 in May 2001 and those that may be authorized in future
ballot issues.
Construction of a typical co-funded elementary school now costs about $6 million in bond-issue money, on which taxpayers
pay off principal and interest for about 20 years. Therefore, building a new school too large or where it is not needed is very wasteful,
especially because taxpayers also will pay for maintenance, security, heating and cooling at that building for decades.
And, as we have warned numerous times beginning with Master Plan Update 7 in June 2008, if only a finite amount of co-
funded space is available district-wide, too much capacity in one neighborhood can only mean that another neighborhood will be
underserved by state-matched construction dollars.
It is therefore very important that construction be based on realistic, enrollment-based assessment of needs rather than
expedience or wishful thinking.
School District proposals
The School District has published a series of Draft Scenarios that propose new construction as well as repairs and
improvements and some school closures in 12 geographic clusters as defined by the District. The District on June 19 concluded a
series of 14 “open houses” at which residents could express opinions about the suggestions in the Draft Scenarios. To date, the District
has not issued a final proposal but it plans to ask the Board of Education on June 24 for authorization to proceed with a Master Plan
revision.
The BAC has analyzed the Draft Scenarios as if every suggested new school will be built, estimating the school capacity in
some cases in which none was specified. In all, the suggested K-8 construction would have a capacity of about 7,000 students. That
figure is close to the K-8 student capacity of 6,787 that the OFCC will co-fund.
The BAC’s analysis of the Draft Scenarios, using enrollment projections for the 2019 target year based on trends for each
cluster from 2008 through 2014, found that the proposals would result in significant excess K-8 capacity in the Lee-Miles, Central-
Kinsman-Mt. Pleasant, and Glenville-University-Hough clusters and to a lesser extent in the Downtown-St. Clair-Superior-Hough
cluster. In five clusters, complete implementation of the Scenarios would result in new/like-new student capacity in 2019 that exceeds
their current enrollment, despite long-term trends of declining enrollment.
6
ones get to attend modern schools with the latest lighting, plumbing, heating and cooling, technology, etc. and which must attend older
schools that have not been well maintained for years and will receive an unspecified amount of updates.
The District has correctly noted that it cannot unbuild Issue 14 schools that, due to declining enrollment or misjudgment, are
not filled to capacity. It is also true that while a given Cluster might have unused capacity in one area, another part of the Cluster
might not have a nearby modern K-8school. The issue then becomes whether the District builds that additional co-funded school or
devises another solution, such as within-cluster bus transportation, to make better use of the space already built.
Built and proposed K-8 construction capacity
as percentage of current enrollment
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
140.00%
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 4
Cluster 5
Cluster 6
Cluster 7
Cluster 8
Cluster 9
Cluster 10
Cluster 11
Cluster 12
KEY: Cluster (1) Kamm’s Corner – Bellaire-Puritas (2) Detroit-Shoreway – Cudell – Edgewater – West Blvd. (3) Ohio City – Tremont (4) Clark-Fulton – Stockyards (5) Old Brooklyn – Brooklyn Center (6) Broadway – Slavic Village (7) Lee – Miles (8) Central – Kinsman – Mt. Pleasant (9) Buckeye – Shaker – Larchmere (10) Glenville – University – Fairfax (11) Downtown – St. Clair-Superior – Hough (12) Collinwood-Euclid
Perhaps more important is that
the construction suggested in the
Scenarios would result in a significant
shortage of new/like-new student
capacity in the Kamm’s Corner-
Bellaire-Puritas, Detroit-Shoreway-
Cudell-Edgewater, and Old Brooklyn-
Brooklyn Center clusters, and to a
lesser extent in the Ohio City-Tremont
cluster.
In these clusters, new or like-
new student capacity would range from
49 percent to 79 of current enrollment,
even though the enrollment trends of
these clusters are among the most
stable in the District.
The Draft Scenarios would
leave the District with plenty of
capacity to handle its expected
enrollment as long as the older schools
designated for only maintenance or
improvements remain open. For
students, the question will be which
7
And if excess capacity is indeed built in some Clusters, the question is whether residents of other Clusters will be content to
have hundreds of their children attending less well-appointed schools.
Outside the co-funded Plan, the District has proposed to maintain a number of schools that have not been replaced or fully
renovated under the Issue 14 program and to improve or “refresh” many of those. The extent of the improvements is unspecified and
a potential area of concern for residents of neighborhoods which have enrollment that would justify construction of new schools but
which are not proposed to get them. Will the improvements bring modern plumbing, technology, lighting, heating and cooling, or does
“refresh” mean a coat of paint, deep cleaning and some landscaping?
Guided by the past
Cluster enrollment % change 2008-14, not adjusted for Scenarios
-60.00%
-50.00%
-40.00%
-30.00%
-20.00%
-10.00%
0.00%
10.00% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
When the construction
program began in 2002, the state
authorized construction or renovation
of 111 schools to accommodate
72,000 students. Since then,
Cleveland’s population has fallen
about 18 percent and “community
schools” (public charter/non-public
schools), have grown to enroll 18,575
of the District’s children. CMSD
enrollment in the coming school year
is expected to be 37,417, according to
the OFCC’s consultant.
Population decline, growth of
charter schools and loss of housing
stock due to the foreclosure crisis
have not had the same effect on every
neighborhood, resulting in varying
rates of falling enrollment. District
construction decisions in the past
have not appeared to take
neighborhood enrollment trends into
account, and this round of Master
Plan revision is no different.
KEY: Cluster (1) Kamm’s Corner – Bellaire-Puritas (2) Detroit-Shoreway – Cudell – Edgewater – West Blvd. (3) Ohio City – Tremont (4) Clark-Fulton – Stockyards (5) Old Brooklyn – Brooklyn Center (6) Broadway – Slavic Village (7) Lee – Miles (8) Central – Kinsman – Mt. Pleasant (9) Buckeye – Shaker – Larchmere (10) Glenville – University – Fairfax (11) Downtown – St. Clair-Superior – Hough (12) Collinwood-Euclid
8
Plan revision is no different. In support of its proposals to build more schools in some of the neighborhoods where enrollment has
declined the most, the District has cited a desire to attract students from charter schools and to foster residential or commercial
development. In clusters where enrollment has remained stable or even grown in recent years, the District has offered the observation
that their residents tend to want to keep their old schools rather than have them replaced by new ones.
Previous Master Plan
revisions have met the target-year
enrollment forecasts provided by
the OFCC, but those district-wide
forecasts are insufficient for
informing the District’s decisions
about where to build specific
schools and how large to build
them. The state’s forecasts are of
little use in estimating
construction needs at the
neighborhood level.
That is why the BAC uses
past enrollment trends to predict
short-term enrollment behavior.
The goal is to focus scarce
resources – in this case tax
proceeds and the state’s co-
funding allotment – where they
are needed the most, thereby
stopping or minimizing
construction of K-8 space that
will not be used as intended.
The BAC analysis
calculates the average annual rate
of change in each neighborhood’s
enrollment since 2008 and
extends that rate of decline
9
through the next five years – to the nominal build-out year of 2018-19. This leads to a calculation of what a given neighborhood’s
enrollment is likely to be that year. The probable enrollment is then compared with the space that would be provided by the Draft
Scenarios.
This straight-line projection is not perfect.
For one thing, the method will project a result of zero or near-zero for any declining trend, given enough years. Intuition tells
us this will not likely happen in any neighborhood. However, this projection is only for five years, until 2019, so that particular fault
should not be a major factor.
For another thing, reliance
on a historic trend does not
account for major demographic
upheavals, examples ranging from
war and weather catastrophes to
severe economic recessions. If we
had done our projections before
the Great Recession and its
foreclosure crisis, our
extrapolations would have been
too optimistic for many Cleveland
neighborhoods, just like the
state’s past projections were for
the District as a whole. Nor is the
method a good predictor of good
fortune, such as a big surge in
immigration or large new housing
developments.
A District consultant has
asserted that the BAC’s current
extrapolation is based mostly on
the District’s enrollment
experience during and since the
Great Recession and therefore its
prediction for the future is
negatively skewed because such
10
an experience is not likely to be repeated. Indeed, the foreclosure rate in Cleveland has slowed since cresting in 2006-2009, but we
should remember two things: One is that the crisis is not over; there reportedly were 4,774 foreclosure filings in Cleveland just last
year and more than 1,800 through June 9 this year. But the major point is that very many of the tens of thousands of foreclosures in
Cleveland over recent years have left the dwellings uninhabitable due to vandalism and general deterioration. Many homes have been
demolished, and many more will be. So in a sense, the Recession years are a good predictor, lest we think that population – or
enrollment – will rebound quickly from the economic downturn.
The BAC’s analysis treats K-8 schools that have multi-neighborhood appeal, among them the boys and girls academies and
Tremont Montessori, as if they draw only from the cluster in which they are located. To the extent that they draw from other
neighborhoods, the BAC’s suggestions should be regarded with that in mind.
Finally, the analysis cannot predict the effect of major academic initiatives that could increase enrollment. A current example
is the District’s push to greatly expand Pre-K attendance district-wide. The success of this initiative cannot be assumed or quantified at
this time. However, if successful we can say that it would tend to reduce over-capacity in clusters with underused new/like new
buildings and increase under-capacity in clusters identified as already not being planned for as much new/like new space as is merited
by enrollment trends.
While the analysis method has limitations, school enrollment data and trends do show where parents have chosen to send their
children to school, thereby encompassing many other variables, including geographic accessibility, safety, academic offerings,
perceptions of safety, competition from charter schools, etc., as well as the foreclosure crisis.
Looking forward
Vision for accessibility, cost control. Whether or not the School District chooses to amend its Master Plan proposals to more
equitably meet the needs of neighborhoods based on the BAC’s analysis of enrollment trends, the final decisions need to be made in
the context of a larger vision of how to maintain or improve accessibility while controlling costs.
After deciding which schools will be replaced or renovated with state co-funding, what is to be done with the numerous
existing schools that are not part of the co-funded Master Plan? The District needs a larger, unofficial Master Plan that is more specific
about what to do with these schools and about how to pay for it. Some could be replaced or renovated – partially or completely – using
only local tax dollars. Some could be simply maintained, if the District is willing to commit enough money for real maintenance.
Some could be closed and sold or demolished with state co-funding.
Geographic accessibility – safe walking routes, reasonable walking distances – is generally not addressed by the BAC analysis.
In areas where population density has decreased sharply, transportation solutions may provide the most economical way to make use
of already built new-school capacity while minimizing capital and operational spending on more space – co-funded or not – that is or
will be under-used.
11
Charter schools. Availability of high-performing charter schools could help the District decide whether to spend capital
money on nearby CMSD schools. The BAC analysis did not consider availability of charter schools because the OFCC-funded Master
Plan does not include them and because charters, unlike the School District, are not required to remain in operation.
Growth areas. Finally, the vision for accessibility must include consideration of areas where population density has increased
or is planned to increase because of housing development, including downtown, University Circle/Little Italy, Hough, Ohio City,
Detroit-Shoreway. Planners need to assess how many of the residents of new developments are likely to have children that would
attend a District school and whether the District has or could have schools to address such demand. Then the question becomes
whether to spend tax dollars in anticipation of demand or to wait for demand to develop.
By the numbers: Plan vs. need
Methodology. This report therefore uses the average annual change in each neighborhood’s PreK-8 enrollment over the last
six years to make a straight-line calculation of what the enrollment will likely be in the nominal build-out year of 2018-19. It then
compares those estimates with the 2010 Master Plan’s provisions and any changes to that Plan suggested in the Draft Scenarios to see
where the building plan for each of the 12 Clusters as defined by the District should be reduced or increased.
How to read the charts:
Third-15th
columns – The PreK-8 enrollment of each school, per CMSD, followed by the yearly percentage change.
16th
column – The capacity, specified by the OFCC, of a new or fully renovated school in the Master Plan of 2010.
Last column— Any changes to the Master Plan of 2010, as outlined in the District’s Draft Scenarios date June 17, 2014.
Ave. annual survival factor: The average rate by which one year’s neighborhood enrollment has survived to the next year, based on
CMSD data from 2008-2014.
Projected enrollment in 2018-19: The number produced by multiplying the February 2014 enrollment by the average annual survival
factor for each of the five following years.
Excess / (deficit) of Master Plan slots in 2018-19 (highlighted in red): The difference between the neighborhood Master Plan capacity
and the projected enrollment – under the Master Plan of 2010 (next-to-last column) and under any changes outlined in the Draft Scenarios (last
column). A (negative) number indicates that the Master Plan would not provide enough space for the specified number of expected students; a
positive number indicates that the Master Plan would provide space for the specified number of students that are not expected to exist.
Ave. annual survival factor, adjusted: The average rate by which one year’s neighborhood enrollment has survived to the next year,
based on CMSD data from 2008-2014, except that the year of least change and the year of most change are omitted.
Projected enrollment, adjusted: The number produced by multiplying the February 2014 enrollment by the adjusted average annual
survival factor for each of the five following years.
12
Excess / (deficit) of Master Plan slots in 2018-19, adjusted: The difference between the neighborhood Master Plan capacity and the
adjusted projected enrollment. A (negative) number indicates that the Master Plan would not provide enough space for the specified number of
expected students; a positive number indicates that the Master Plan would provide excess space.
