21

Sect ion

03Capacity AnalysisSystem-Wide Capital Improvement Plan

22

100%Capacity

Under 99%Capacity

101%-110%Capacity

111%-120%Capacity

Over121%Capacity

2014 2018 2022

Capa

city

Per

cent

Year Year

Each hash represents one school.

21 Total Elementary Schools

No Action Recommended Action

2014 2018 2022Year Year

22 Total Elementary Schools

Elementary Schools Capacity 2014-2022

CCPS Capacity Trends

The graph above highlights overall enrollment trends in CCPS elementary

schools. Enrollment is projected to outstrip the capacity of the current

building stock over the next 10 years, especially in the Waldorf Area. The

left portion of the graph represents the projected capacity trends resulting

from a business-as-usual approach to maintaining the existing building

stock. The right portion represents the recommended course of action,

which enables the county to economically distribute enrollment, and

provide the highest quality education to the entire population.

23

Creating educational space for every County student requires construction of additional classroom space or the identification of existing, unutilized space. Before a school can be repurposed due to unsatisfactory building conditions, new space, either in existing buildings or in newly constructed space, must be in place. Therefore, projects that create required space necessarily precede projects that repurpose educationally-deficient buildings.

The unused square footage in schools which are under-capacity creates costly inefficiencies, and therefore full utilization of existing capacity was also of important consideration. Buildings that are significantly under capacity unjustifiably tax CCPS resources, particularly in energy consumption costs, systemic maintenance requirements, property maintenance costs and utilization, security and supervisory staff, and other operational costs. Consolidation of school populations into buildings that utilize 90-100% capacity enable an efficient and cost-effective CCPS operation, allowing valuable resources to be used where they are most needed.

The graphics on the following pages indicate the process by which the team determined capacity need throughout the county. Schools were clustered by geographically convenient regions, according to school type, in order to glean average capacity percentages. By comparing current state rated capacity (SRC) to projected 2022 full-time equivalent enrollment (FTE), the team was able to project which areas were under-utilized, over-capacity, or appropriately served. Over-crowded schools with low capacity were prime candidates for either additions and renovations, or replacement.

The ultimate goal in this study was to enable schools to provide each student in Charles County with a 21st-century educational environment, as well to create a useful and efficient stock of buildings for the County to maintain. A proposed capacity between 90% and 110% was applied to as many regional clusters as possible, and overall projected enrollment was established between 94% and 100% (by school type) across the entire county.

5000

Elementary

Tota

l Enr

ollm

ent

Middle High

7500

10000

12500

2014 2022 2014 2022 2014 2022

Projected Enrollment 2014 vs 2022

Summary

24

About Tableau maps: www.tableausoftware.com/mapdata

1

2

34

8

5 6 7

9

10

Cluster School Name SRC 2022 FTE Proposed SRC

Proposed % Capacity

1 Mt. Hope/Nanjemoy 373 435 373 117%

Combined 117%

2 Gale-Bailey 438 438 438 100%

2 Indian Head 404 530 600 88%

Combined 93%

3 Dr. James Craik 406 541 768 70%

3 J. C. Parks 656 842 656 128%

Combined 97%

7 Malcolm 417 409 417 98%

Combined 98%

8 T. C. Martin 486 639 768 83%

Combined 83%

9 Mary H. Matula 554 656 554 118%

9 Walter J. Mitchell 606 711 768 93%

Combined 103%

10 Dr. Thomas Higdon 447 506 447 113%

Combined 113%

Regional Capacity Analysis Elementary Schools Excluding Clusters 4,5,6. (Waldorf Area)

25

About Tableau maps: www.tableausoftware.com/mapdata

6

54

Cluster School Name SRC 2022 FTE Proposed SRC

Proposed % Capacity

4 Berry 656 974 656 148%

4 William A. Diggs 816 823 816 101%

4 New School 768

Combined 80%

5 C. Paul Barnhart 608 737 608 121%

5 Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer 495 776 495 157%

5 William B. Wade 672 888 672 132%

5 New School 768

Combined 94%

6 Dr. Gustavus Brown 381 498 0 0%

6 Arthur Middleton 439 477 439 109%

6 Dr. Samuel Mudd 404 478 604 68%

6 Mary B. Neal 791 847 791 107%

6 J.P. Ryon 656 607 656 93%

6 Eva Turner 391 547 0 0%

6 New School 768

Combined 106%

Regional Capacity Analysis Elementary Schools Only Showing Clusters 4,5,6. (Waldorf Area)

26

About Tableau maps: www.tableausoftware.com/mapdata

1315

14

12

11

Cluster School Name SRC 2022 FTE Proposed SRC

Proposed % Capacity

11 Piccowaxen 544 472 544 87%

Combined 87%

12 Milton M. Somers 802 1016 1002 101%

Combined 101%

13 Matthew Henson 659 808 859 94%

13 General Smallwood 659 604 656 92%

Combined 93%

14 Theodore G. Davis 1148 952 1148 83%

14 Mattawoman 890 1040 890 117%

Combined 98%

15 John Hanson 843 931 943 99%

15 Benjamin Stoddert 711 795 711 112%

Combined 104%

Regional Capacity Analysis Middle Schools

27

About Tableau maps: www.tableausoftware.com/mapdata

1619

17 18

Cluster School Name SRC 2022 FTE Proposed SRC

Proposed % Capacity

16 Henry E. Lackey 1539 1337 1539 87%

Combined 83%

17 Maurice McDonough 1200 1230 1200 103%

Combined 103%

18 North Point 1600 2434 1600 152%

18 Westlake 1203 1645 1203 137%

18 Thomas Stone 1513 1396 1513 92%

18 St. Charles 1600 1600

Combined 93%

19 La Plata 1162 1582 1600 99%

Combined 99%

Regional Capacity Analysis High Schools