fy 2012 superintendent’s proposed budget questions … · matthew e. stanski chief financial...
TRANSCRIPT
Questions Received from Prince George’s County Office of Audits and Investigations
March 26, 2012
Responses provided: April 18, 2012
Board of Education Requested
FY 2013
Annual Operating Budget
Business Management Services
Matthew E. Stanski
Chief Financial Officer
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 2
Qu
esti
on
Questions from Prince George’s County Office of Audits and Investigations
Received March 29, 2012 Pa
ge
1 Provide the status of any pending legislation that may impact the School System’s FY 2013
requested budget. In your response, indicate whether these funds are included in the requested budget and the impact of the legislation. Provide the funding level and how the
Board anticipates using the funds. Also, explain if any funds are budgeted in the requested budget that may not be funded by the State and what reductions the School System will
make, if necessary.
6
2 Explain the reason for and the impact of the Federal Restricted Sources revenue decrease on the FY 2013 requested budget.
6
3 Explain the reason for and the impact of the State Mandated Share of the Disparity Grant
revenue decrease on the FY 2013 requested budget.
6
4 Discuss the Board’s current Fund Balance level and the anticipated current and future use of
these Funds.
7
5 Page 24 – Fiscal Highlights Explain the impact, including staffing changes by type of position, of the mandatory costs
on page 23 of the requested budget for part-time salary/substitutes, health insurance, workers’ compensation insurance, lease purchases and special education-non-public.
7
6 Page 24 – Fiscal Highlights
Explain the impact, including staffing changes by type of position, of the redirected resources on page 24 of the requested budget for the Division of Information Technology,
Transportation, Maintenance & Safety Office and Operating Services – cleaners.
8
7 Pages 57 – 60 Financial Plan – Staffing Based on pages 57 through 60 of the School System’s requested budget, there will be an
increase of 73 operating positions over the FY 2012 Approved staffing level (mainly teachers, librarians, and aides-paraprofessionals). Explain the impact the increase of these
positions will have on meeting the School System’s classroom, functional and program
requirements. Explain the aides-paraprofessional positions by type of position.
9
8 Pages 57 – 60 Financial Plan – Staffing
Additionally, based on pages 57 through 60 of the requested budget, a number of positions
were decreased in FY 2013 (guidance counselors, bus drivers, and other staff). Explain what programmatic changes occurred to cause the decreases and what the impact is on the
School System. Please explain the other staff by position type.
10
9 Provide, by position type, how many of the positions being decreased are filled and vacant.
10
10 Explain the changes in the FY 2013 requested categorical levels for all categories except for the Mid-Level Administration, Textbooks and Instructional Materials, Student Personnel
Services, Food Services Subsidy, Community Services, and Capital Outlay categories.
Administration
Instructional Salaries
Instructional Other
Special Education
Health Services
11
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 3
Qu
esti
on
Questions from Prince George’s County Office of Audits and Investigations
Received March 29, 2012 Pa
ge
Student Transportation
Operation of Plant
Maintenance of Plant
Fixed Charges
What operational or functional changes are occurring to cause these increases/ decreases?
Please include in the explanation the increase or decrease in staffing, based on page 57 of the requested budget, by position type.
11 Pages 55 and 56 Financial Plan – Changes in Expenditures by Organization Explain the major budget changes and organizational changes (including changes made
during FY 2012 that affected the FY 2013 requested budget) reflected on pages 55 and 56
of the requested budget for the following Board organizations: Chief Academic Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Human Resources and Chief Operating Officer.
13
12 TEXTBOOKS
What funding level is in the requested budget for textbooks? How much of this funding represents payments for previous lease/purchase book payments and how much represents
funding for new book purchases? Explain if significant book purchases will be made in FY 2013.
15
13 Page 53 Financial Plan – Expenditures by Object
Based on page 53 of the FY 2013 requested budget under Expenditures by Object, explain the decrease in Contracted Services. Explain the changes and provide a breakdown of the
costs by expenditure type and amount.
15
14 Explain the impact of declining student enrollment on the School System including funding, school capacities, teacher/student ratios, number of schools, school boundaries, key factors
influencing this trend, etcetera. Discuss how the County’s enrollment changes/trends compare with other local School Systems. ATTACHMENTS
16
15 Discuss the status of the media specialists and reading recovery programs including staffing
levels.
16
16 Provide a brief update on the transportation function review being conducted by the School
System.
16
17 Explain the impact the Charter Schools have on the requested budget. Explain if there are new Charter Schools opening in FY 2013. What is the FY 2013 funding to support Charter
Schools?
17
18 Explain the $6.3 million decrease in lease purchases under the Non-Departmental Section on page A-1. Provide a list of the purchases, including dollar amounts. ATTACHMENT
17
19 Explain the results of the latest OPEB actuarial study. What did the study require as the
School System’s contribution to the liability? What is the School System’s plan to meet the liability? How much has the School System budgeted for this liability in FY 2013 and how
much is in reserves?
18
20 Explain the financial status of the School System’s other Funds’ (i.e. risk management, workers’ compensation, food services, etcetera).
18
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 4
Qu
esti
on
Questions from Prince George’s County Office of Audits and Investigations
Received March 29, 2012 Pa
ge
21 The Strategic Planning and Grants Development unit discusses migrating from the Master
Plan to a Strategic Plan. Explain the difference between the Master Plan and the Strategic Plan, and if the Strategic Plan will still ensure compliance with the State Master Plan
requirements. Discuss why the School System is migrating from the Master Plan to a Strategic Plan. Explain the advantages of the migration including any financial advantage.
19
22 Provide the funding the Board's requested budget includes for technology improvements.
Explain in detail what improvements and/or enhancements are planned for the School System. As applicable, explain how these changes will improve instruction, and improve the
accounting, payroll and human resources systems.
19
23 Explain the status of the staff development activities and whether the funding being provided in FY 2013 for staff development is sufficient, and if not, explain what will not be
accomplished and what impact this will have (i.e., planned initiatives that will not be carried out).
21
24 Describe how successful current and prior year efforts have been to increase the number of
certified teachers. Describe your current efforts and future efforts to increase the number of certified teachers in the school system. Provide how many teachers are currently not
certified. How many of the new hires (teachers) in FY 2011 and FY 2012 were certified and how many were not certified?
23
25 What percentage of the teacher work force left in FY 2011? Was this percentage unusually
large compared with normal experience? How many teachers do you project will leave this summer? How successful has the school system been in retaining teachers and principals
since salaries have been more competitive with other jurisdictions?
25
26 Explain the impact of the retirement incentive plan on retirements. Provide how many employees retired through the plan by type of position. Will the School System have an
incentive plan in FY 2013?
25
27 Provide the number of teachers that are eligible to retire over the next four years.
26
28 What has the School System budgeted for leave payouts? Explain if any accumulated costs
associated with unfunded leave have been deferred.
27
29 What is the present status of labor negotiations? Which union contracts have been
negotiated and what is the anticipated date for those not concluded to date? If any have been concluded, what is the cost-of-living adjustment they will receive? Provide a list of all
bargaining groups and the number of employees represented by each group.
27
30 What contingency amount has been set aside for salary increments (cost-of-living adjustment, etc.)? How much of that funding would go to teachers? Will some of those
funds go for pay scale adjustments in addition to an across-the-board cost-of-living
adjustment? Discuss how County teachers’ salaries compare with other local jurisdictions.
28
31 Provide a status update on the number of reconstitution eligible schools. Explain what
schools were added or deleted from the State list, what activities are presently ongoing at the schools, and what other schools are in danger of possible inclusion in the State process.
28
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 5
Qu
esti
on
Questions from Prince George’s County Office of Audits and Investigations
Received March 29, 2012 Pa
ge
32 Provide the most recent listing, by school, of current school capacities, and current
enrollment levels. ATTACHMENT
29
33 Provide a list of what projects were completed under this year’s maintenance projects.
ATTACHMENT 29
34 Provide a list of all planned maintenance/repair activities (i.e., code corrections, major/minor repairs) that are included in the requested budget. ATTACHMENT
29
35 Discuss the status of student attendance. What is the current attendance rate and how
does this compare to FY 2011. Discuss the status of the School System’s efforts regarding truancy, including the status of the implementation of pupil personnel workers and efforts in
conjunction with the judicial systems.
29
36 Explain the status of student performance on the High School Assessments (HSA).
31
37 Provide a listing of the number of temporary school buildings by school location. ATTACHMENT
31
38 Provide a listing of the non-profit organizations (i.e. Teach for America, College Summit,
Hillside, etcetera) that assist, provide services, or work with the School System, including what services or activities they provide, funding provided, how many schools are affected,
and how they relate to accomplishing the School System’s objectives.
31
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 6
1. Provide the status of any pending legislation that may impact the School System’s FYs2013
requested budget. In your response, indicate whether these funds are included in the
requested budget and the impact of the legislation. Provide the funding level and how the
Board anticipates using the funds. Also, explain if any funds are budgeted in the requested
budget that may not be funded by the State and what reductions the School System will make,
if necessary.
Senate Bill 848 Education – Maintenance of Effort – Waivers could affect Prince George‟s County
Public Schools budget if the County fails to make maintenance of effort. This bill applies a financial
penalty to the school system not the County; if the County fails to make maintenance of effort. The
Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI) adjustment at 100% of funding, an increase of 1% in the
Target per Pupil Foundation amount and a 1% increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for
Transportation are included in the Governor‟s Budget.
Another pending legislation is State Retirement; there is the potential redirection of the State
Retirement funding from the State to the Board of Education which will necessitate further
adjustments to the 2013 budget. Similarly, changes in requested and/or approved County funding
levels will require revisions to amounts shown in the requested budget. The Board of Education‟s
requested budget could be reduced by approximately ($46.5m) if the Governor‟s Budget is not
approved. The school system‟s budget request to the County is $1.6B, the use of these funds are
spelled out in the FY 2013 Board of Education Requested Annual Operating Budget submitted to the
County earlier this month. The financial impact associated with components in the Governor‟s Budget
not funded effecting the school system will have to be adjusted during the reconciliation of the 2013
budget. Reconciliation of the requested budget will occur once the County approves the BOE 2013
Annual Operating Budget. Specific additions and reductions will be identified by the Board of
Education during the reconciliation process.
2. Explain the reason for and the impact of the Federal Restricted Sources revenue decrease on
the FY 2013 requested budget.
The FY 2013 requested federal restricted resources net decrease of ($4,633,447) in revenue under
the FY 2012 approved budget amount is primarily due to revalidated estimates for federal grant
awards anticipated for fiscal year 2013. Revenues and expenditures for federal restricted programs
are primarily associated with entitlement, formula, and project grants funded by various sponsoring
governmental agencies. These estimates are subject to revalidation during each cycle of the budget
development process and are generally based on the latest projection models provided by the
Maryland State Department of Education and other federal, state, and local fiscal authorities.
3. Explain the reason for and the impact of the State Mandated Share of the Disparity Grant
revenue decrease on the FY 2013 requested budget.
The State Mandated Share of the Disparity Grant revenue for FY 2012 was a one-time occurrence;
the Board of Education‟s fiscal year 2013 requested budget was adjusted to reflect the reduced
revenue – see page 23-25 Fiscal Highlights in the FY 2013 Board of Education Requested Annual
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 7
Operating Budget book which details system-wide reductions and redirected resources to balance the
requested budget.
4. Discuss the Board’s current Fund Balance level and the anticipated current and future use of
these Funds.
PGCPS FY 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report end-of-year Unreserved Fund Balance is
$3,267,799.
5. Page 24 – Fiscal Highlights – Explain the impact, including staffing changes by type of
position, of the mandatory costs on page 23 of the requested budget for:
Part-time salary/substitutes - The FY 2013 requested operating budget includes a reduction of
($9,258,959) in part-time salary/substitute funds. This reduction reflects a decrease in funding for
the usage of substitutes as a result of significant improvement in the management of the
substitute assignment process coupled with the current decline in student enrollment which
contributes to staffing fewer teachers that impacts the need for substitutes to continue classroom
instruction.
Health insurance – The FY 2013 requested budget includes an additional $14,105,595 to
support Health Insurance. This increase is projected to support increased health insurance
premiums and a projected increase in health insurance enrollment. The increase in Health
Insurance is the result of increased claim expenditures due to rising prices in the economy as has
been the trend for the past several years.
Workers’ Compensation Insurance – The FY 2013 requested operating budget includes an
additional $4,026,685 for Worker‟s Compensation Insurance to cover the increases in wage
replacement and medical benefits to employees injured on the job.
Lease Purchases – The lease purchase funds identified under the mandatory costs represents
($8,489,786) for the retirement of the FY 2008 lease agreement as well as $2,159,876 to support
the FY 2013 lease agreement to include instructional computer refresh and bus radios.
Special Education – Nonpublic – The FY 2013 requested operating budget includes a reduction
of ($8,510,033) in Nonpublic Placement. This reduction was necessary to meet the system‟s
legal obligation to convert a portion of the Dedicated Aides from temporary to full-time positions
as agreed upon by both Prince George‟s County Public Schools and Local 2250 in the
Memorandum Of Understanding (MOE) signed back in September 2009.
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 8
6. Page 24 – Fiscal Highlights – Explain the impact, including staffing changes by type of
position, of the redirected resources on page 24 of the requested budget for:
Division of Information Technology – The FY 2013 requested operating budget for
Information Technology includes a reduction of ($2,105,396) to discretionary and contracted
services funding to accommodate the projected decrease in revenue for FY 2013. The
reduction does not include expenditures for staffing.
Transportation – Requested staffing changes and impact of redirection of resources will
have limited effect on Transportation. Operational reforms planned in this area right-sizes
responsibility with efficiencies, including staff.
The FY 2013 requested operating budget for Transportation includes a reduction of
($5,106,329) in salary and benefits associated with the decrease of (64.12) FTE. Positions
affected are listed below:
Bus Driver Foreman (2.00)
Bus Driver Assistant Foreman (2.00)
Program Manager (1.00)
Transportation Supervisor (1.00)
Transportation Attendant (13.00)
Bus Driver (39.12)
Medicaid Liaison* * (1.00)
Licensed Automotive Journeyman (3.00)
Supply Clerk (1.00)
Warranty Parts Manager (1.00)
Total (64.12)
** Position transferred to Medicaid Office under Financial Services.
Maintenance & Safety Office – The FY 2013 requested operating budget includes a
reduction of ($3,821,543) in Maintenance under the FY 2012 approved budget. This
reduction is due to a decrease in funds allocated to Supplies and Materials, M&R Building
and Contracted Services.
Operating Services – cleaners – The FY 2013 requested operating budget includes a
reduction of ($4,902,958) under the FY 2012 approved budget. This reduction results from
the decrease of (113.75) cleaner positions. The following strategies and actions will be
implemented to ensure adequate cleaning of our schools:
o Generally, custodians will be limited to cleaning and maintaining the buildings. Although
many swing cleaner positions will be lost at elementary schools, the Building Supervisors
will assume those swing cleaner duties.
o PGCPS will investigate the feasibility of any productivity improvements by analyzing a
"team cleaning" approach as an alternative to our current "zone cleaning." PGCPS has
had discussions with a preeminent consultant in team cleaning in elementary, middle and
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 9
high schools. Building Services has engaged in preliminary discussions with SEIU Local
400PG executives, and they seem eager to participate in this investigation.
o Building Service is purchasing nearly $0.5 million in new, modern, efficient cleaning
equipment (sweepers, scrubbers, etc...) which will more productivity. Landscaping
responsibilities for custodians will be limited to grass cutting only.
o Custodians will not be able to monitor cafeterias during lunch. They will respond to spills
and clean-ups; but, they will not be able to monitor and observe students.
o Building Services will fill vacancies at a faster rate and provide clerical assistance to our
position control person.
o PGCPS will follow through and implement switching disciplinary actions from school
based personnel to the Facility Coordinators. Building Services feel this will change
behaviors at a faster rate.
o PGCPS will enhance training efforts by providing training at the school level.
7. Pages 57 – 60 Financial Plan – Staffing – Based on pages 57 through 60 of the School
System’s requested budget, there will be an increase of 73 operating positions over the
FYs2012 Approved staffing level (mainly teachers, librarians, and aides-paraprofessionals).
Explain the impact the increase of these positions will have on meeting the School System’s
classroom, functional and program requirements. Explain the aides-paraprofessional
positions by type of position.
As part of Student-Based Budgeting, the re-designed budget allocation process, schools now receive
a per-pupil funding allotment. With those funds, they are able to purchase certain positions and
resources for their program. These positions include paraprofessionals (serving both ELL and
general education students), library media specialists and aides, teachers, and other administrative
and support staff. While the academic outcomes and expectations are consistent across schools,
with SBB there is more flexibility with regards to how schools design and meet their programmatic
requirements. For many schools, increases in FTE came as a trade-off for other resources, such as
assistant principals, secretaries, reading specialists, professional school counselors, and supplies
and materials.
In the FY 2013 requested operating budget, the average district-wide per-pupil spending on these
eligible resources (what we call "Unlocked" resources) has increased only slightly from FY 2012 to
FYs2013, roughly $20 per pupil. Therefore, the changes that have occurred with this budget
represent individual choices of schools rather than a systemic shift in programmatic design or
priorities.
Paraprofessional and aide staff with significant increases includes:
Special Education Paraprofessionals and Aides
ESOL Paraprofessionals
General Education Paraprofessionals
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 10
8. Pages 57 – 60 Financial Plan – Staffing – Additionally, based on pages 57 through 60 of the
requested budget, a number of positions were decreased in FY 2013 (guidance counselors,
bus drivers, and other staff). Explain what programmatic changes occurred to cause the
decreases and what the impact is on the School System. Please explain the other staff by
position type.
Of the positions that are in schools as part of the SBB process, the following positions were
decreased: professional school counselors, assistant principals, secretaries, and reading specialists.
Again, those positions were reduced as part of that school community's vision and priorities around
their school design. Some reductions were made to support a new direction, while other reductions
were made in an effort to balance their budget.
Other positions outside of the SBB process, such as Transportation and custodial staff, were made in
an effort to streamline school operations. Resources are being shifted and improved processes are
being developed by those departments to limit any impact on those services.
9. Provide, by position type, how many of the positions being decreased are filled and vacant.
Provided below are the positions that are being reduced, and the vacancies associated with these positions at the beginning of the development of the FY 2013 budget.
Position Type FY 2012
Approved FTE
FY 2013 Requested
FTE
Change from Approved
Vacant Positions as of November,
2011
Admin Support Specialist 104.00 97.00 (7.00) 9.00
Assistant Foreman 15.00 13.00 (2.00) 0.00
Assistant Principal 275.00 257.50 (17.50) 0.00
Attorney 5.00 3.00 (2.00) 2.00
Bus Driver 982.42 943.30 (39.12) 0.00
Bus Driver Foreman 14.00 12.00 (2.00) 0.00
Chief Building Supervisor 23.00 0.00 (23.00) 0.00
Cleaner 616.63 502.63 (114.00) 0.00
Clerk I 7.12 4.00 (3.12) 1.00
Director 44.00 42.00 (2.00) 0.00
Guidance Counselor 351.00 329.50 (21.50) 0.00
In-School Suspension Monitor 61.60 61.00 (0.60) 13.00
Instructional Assistant 10.00 9.00 (1.00) 0.00
Instructional Media Aide 6.00 2.50 (3.50) 0.00
Instructional Specialist 124.00 121.40 (2.60) 12.00
Instructional Supervisor 41.00 36.00 (5.00) 0.00
Licensed Automotive Journeyman 83.00 80.00 (3.00) 15.00
Mentor Teacher 15.50 14.50 (1.00) 2.50
Night Cleaner Lead 189.00 188.00 (1.00) 4.00
Outreach Teacher 16.00 15.00 (1.00) 4.00
Program Liaison 95.12 89.22 (5.90) 0.00
Program Manager 6.00 5.00 (1.00) 0.00
ROTC Instructor 56.00 52.00 (4.00) 1.00
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 11
Position Type FY 2012
Approved FTE
FY 2013 Requested
FTE
Change from Approved
Vacant Positions as of November,
2011
Reading Specialist 162.50 126.00 (36.50) 0.00
Registered Nurse 210.00 204.00 (6.00) 18.00
Secondary Classroom Teacher 3,038.88 2,991.98 (46.90) 0.00
Secretary 692.50 666.50 (26.00) 0.00
Speech Therapist 113.00 107.00 (6.00) 6.30
Supp Program Coordinator 17.00 15.00 (2.00) 0.00
Supply Clerk I 11.00 10.00 (1.00) 1.00
Support Supervisor 39.00 38.00 (1.00) 1.00
Trades Helper 59.00 58.00 (1.00) 0.00
Transportation Attendant 307.97 294.97 (13.00) 0.00
Warranty Parts Man 2.00 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
10. Explain the changes in the FY 2013 requested categorical levels for all categories except for
the Mid-Level Administration, Textbooks and Instructional Materials, Student Personnel
Services, Food Services Subsidy, Community Services, and Capital Outlay categories. What
operational or functional changes are occurring to cause these increases/ decreases? Include
in the explanation the increase or decrease in staffing, based on page 57 of the requested
budget, by position type.
Administration – The FY 2013 requested operating budget reflects an overall increase of $3.9
million in the category of Administration. This increase is primarily due to additional funding in
the amount of $2.4 million in restricted that the school system anticipates receiving for
continuation grants, anticipated carryover for existing grants and the seeking of potential future
grant opportunities to meet school system initiatives. Funds in the grant reserve provide the
system a means of appropriating funds when these grants are approved during the fiscal year by
the issuing fiscal agent. Additionally, funds in the amount of $1.5 million have been placed in
reserve for potential negotiated increases for PGCPS employees that fall within this category.
Instructional Salaries – The FY 2013 requested operating budget reflects an overall increase of
$12,444,645 and 55.10 FTE in the category of Instructional Salaries. This increase is primarily
due to funds placed in reserve for potential negotiations for PGCPS instructional employees.
Instructional Other Costs – The FY 2013 requested operating budget for the category of Other
Instructional Costs is $46,062,577, a (8.4%) decrease under the FY 2012 approved budget of
$50,259,399. The decrease is due to the retirement of the FY 2008 lease purchase agreement
and system-wide reduction to discretionary and contracted services funding to remain within fiscal
constraints. The category of „Other Instructional Costs‟, Function 205, does not include
expenditures for staffing.
Special Education – The FY 2013 requested operating budget reflects an increase of $12.4
million and 156.90 FTE in the category of Special Education. This represents a 5.1% increase
over the FYs2012 approved operating budget. The increase funding will support special
education non-public services as well as an increase in the Reserve for Future Grants that
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 12
represents projected funding level estimates for grants the school system anticipates receiving for
continuation grants, anticipated carryover for existing grants, and the seeking of potential future
grant opportunities to meet school system initiatives. Funds in the grant reserve provide the
district a means of appropriating funds when these grants are approved during the fiscal year by
the issuing fiscal agent.
Health Services - The FY 2013 requested operating budget for the category of Health Services is $16,718,344, a 9.5% increase over the FY 2012 approved budget of $15,272,792. The increase is due to additional funding required to provide contractual student health services. The FY 2013 requested budget also includes a reduction of (6.00) FTE positions that includes (5.00) registered nurse and (1.0) secretary position.
Student Transportation – Improvements in efficiencies in operations such as routing, bus capacity and utilization, and school bell time changes are being made. As a result, dollars have been redirected from operational support to direct instruction through reductions in the following areas in Student Transportation:
Budget Reductions: Full/Part-Time Salaries – ($1,679,132) under the FY 2012 approved budget are mostly due
to the reduction in bus drivers. Contracted Services – ($1,552,359) under the FY 2012 approved budget are mainly due to
reductions in lease purchase, school activity transportation, and other contracted services.
Total Reductions – ($3,231,491)
Position Reductions: Admin Support Technician (1.00) Bus Driver Foreman (2.00) Bus Driver Assistant Foreman (2.00) Transportation Supervisor (2.00) Transportation Attendant (13.00) Bus Driver (39.12) Secretary (1.00) Total Position Reductions (60.12)
Operation of Plant – The FY 2013 requested operating budget includes a reduction of ($5.4
million) and (124.00) FTE in the category of Operation of Plant. This reduction is primarily due to
reorganization in an effort to improve efficiency and use of personnel. The departments‟
strategies and actions to ensure adequate cleaning of our schools include:
o Custodians being limited to cleaning and maintaining buildings;
o Building supervisors will assume swing cleaner duties;
o Investigating the feasibility of any productivity improvements by analyzing a "team
cleaning" approach as an alternative to our current "zone cleaning." The system has held
discussions with a preeminent consultant in team cleaning and is working on piloting
programs in elementary, middle, and high schools;
o Purchasing $0.5 million in new, modern, efficient cleaning equipment (sweepers,
scrubbers, etc.) that will allow staff to be more productive;
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 13
o Landscaping responsibilities for custodians will be limited to grass cutting only. They will
no longer plant trees, flowers, mulch, trim trees, etc. (this work will be done by the
maintenance grounds crew); and
o Enhance training efforts by providing training at the school level. We will minimize pulling
people from the school to provide them with training.
Maintenance of Plant – The FY 2013 requested operating budget includes a reduction of ($2.5)
million in the category of Maintenance of Plant. This decrease is due to a reduction of funds
allocated to Supplies and Materials and Contracted Services as it is related to M&R Buildings and
Maintenance Supplies. The overall increase of 8.00 FTE in this category is primarily the result of
the realignment of 12.00 journeyman positions from the category of Operation of Plant to
Maintenance of Plant.
Journeyman 12.0
Support Supervisor 1.0
Admin Support Specialist (1.0)
Secretary (3.0)
Trades Helper (1.0)
Total Maintenance of Plant 8.0
Fixed Charges – The FY 2013 requested operating budget reflects an increase of $21.9 million
in the category of Fixed Charges. This represents a 6.7% increase over the FY 2012 approved
operating budget. The increase is primarily due to projected increases in retirement, worker‟s
compensation, terminal leave payout, and health care benefits.
11. Pages 55 and 56 Financial Plan – Explain the major budget changes and organizational
changes (including changes made during FY 2012 that affected the FY 2013 requested budget)
reflected on pages 55 and 56 of the requested budget for the following Board organizations:
Chief Academic Officer – The FY 2013 requested budget for the Chief Academic Officer
includes an increase of $3,677,148 and 5.00 FTE over the FY 2012 approved budget. This increase is primarily the result of the realignment of funds associated with the Turnaround Schools Office, including 4.00 FTE to the page of the Chief Academic Officer. Additionally, funds were increased to support an initiative to support Secondary School Reform and a 1.00 FTE increase associated with this initiative.
Chief Financial Officer – The FY 2013 requested operating budget for the organization of Chief
Financial Officer includes a net increase of 3.00 FTE in the areas of Financial Services and
Payroll and Benefits Services. The Financial Services Office increased by 2.00 FTE, 1.00
technician to support the Medicaid Office due to increased Medicaid billing across the district and
1.00 secretary position in Risk Management to assist with worker‟s compensation. The Financial
Services budget also increased $3.6 million to support increased costs associated with managing
the sick leave bank. The Payroll and Benefits Office increased 1.00 administrative support
specialist position to review worker‟s compensation claims. Other Fixed Charges in the Chief
Financial Officer‟s division increased $10.4 million to support employee retirement, terminal
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 14
leave, FICA, workman‟s compensation, health and life insurance and reductions in
prekindergarten transportation reserve and the food service subsidy.
Chief Human Resources – The overall increase in the Office of the Chief of Human Resources
is largely due to restricted grants from the Wallace and Gates Foundation grants in addition to the
federal Race To The Top grant that support instructional and administrative professional
development for teachers and principals as well as general operating funds to support the
reinstatement of the Tuition Reimbursement Program. The Human Resources Division is being
reorganized for FY 2013 and it includes the elimination of the Human Resources Operations
Department. The employees from that department are being placed in the remaining
departments; Employee and Labor Relations, Human Capital Management and the newly named
Human Resources Services (formerly Recruiting and Certification).
Chief Operating Officer – Explanations by department are provided below: o Chief Operating Office – The overall increase of $934,495 is the result of redirected
resources from Building Services to support the daily operational needs of the Environmental
AHERA Office as it relates to contracted services.
o Building Services - The overall decrease of ($2.5) million is due to the overall reduction in
funds allocated to Supplies and Materials, M&R Building and Contracted Services and
redirection of resources to support Environmental AHERA.
o Capital Programs – The decrease of ($46,000) is the result of a reduction in leased footage
associated with contracted services.
o Food and Nutrition Services – The overall increase is due to the min-grant carryover for the
Culinary and Healthful Enhancement of Foods Grant.
o Purchasing and Supply Services – The increase of $5.9 million is due to the reorganization of Purchasing and Supply Services from the Chief Financial Officer to the Chief
Operating Officer.
o Security Services – The decrease of ($1.07) million is due to the transfer of 12.0
journeyman positions and 1.0 support supervisor position from Security Services to Building Services.
o Transportation – The overall decrease of ($4.6) million is due to the reduction of Salary
and Wages, Employee Benefits and Contracted Services in the Transportation and Central
Garage Department.
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 15
12. TEXTBOOKS – What funding level is in the requested budget for textbooks? How much of this
funding represents payments for previous lease/purchase book payments and how much
represents funding for new book purchases? Explain if significant book purchases will be
made in FY 2013.
The FY 2013 requested operating budget includes total funding in the amount of $7,821,205 of which
$2,439,762 supports the purchase of textbook consumables and $5,381,443 supports of lease
purchase payments on previous lease/purchase agreements for textbook purchases. The FY 2013
requested operating budget does not include funds to support the lease/purchase of any new
textbooks.
Textbooks are reviewed on a cycle of seven years to determine if the texts are current and
appropriate for the instructional program being delivered. If it is determined that the resources can
still support the instructional program to be delivered, books are not bought. The current review for
textbooks has been pushed out to ten years. As resources become outdated and no longer available,
they are replaced.
In addition, PGCPS works to replace resources each year that are lost or damaged with use. The
system currently has textbooks that are no longer being printed for publication. Used resources are
purchased from vendors to help keep down the cost of a new adoption until it is no longer feasible.
Even if textbooks are replaced or new courses are added as required by MSDE, the system will incur
costs associated with textbook resources. PGCPS will be as strategic as possible in the use of these
resources and use as many options as available to stretch these valuable tools for learning.
13. Page 53 Financial Plan – Based on page 53 of the FY 2013 requested budget under
Expenditures by Object, explain the decrease in Contracted Services. Explain the changes
and provide a breakdown of the costs by expenditure type and amount.
The FY 2013 requested operating budget for Contracted Services includes a net decrease of ($7.28)
million under the FY 2012 approved budget. The overall decrease is the result of several contributing
factors which include reductions of:
($4.08) million for the elimination of the FY 2008 lease purchase agreement for textbooks;
($1.37) million for the changes in lease purchase agreements for technology and school buses for
FY 2013;
($716,726) from the College and Career Ready Office;
($650,000) in M&R Building Rental in Maintenance; and
($641,250) in matching funds for the TIF grant.
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 16
14. Explain the impact of declining student enrollment on the School System including funding,
school capacities, teacher/student ratios, number of schools, school boundaries, key factors
influencing this trend, etcetera. Discuss how the County’s enrollment changes/trends
compare with other local School Systems.
Attached are several extracts from the Educational Facility Master Plan (EFMP) which touches on the
items of interest. Also included is an extract from the Maryland Department of Planning Public School
Enrollment Projections publication which discusses Prince George's County enrollments (and future
prospects) in the context of trends in other jurisdictions and the State as a whole. The declining
student enrollment reduces the amount of revenue received from both State and Local funds.
Revenue is calculated on a per pupil basis, a reduction to enrollment decreases the amount of funds
the district has to operate schools and implement innovative academic improvements. The declining
enrollment also creates underutilized schools, thus forcing the district to close specific schools as well
as reduce the overlapping positions as school boundaries are redrawn.
Attachment – Question 14 A – Prince George‟s County Outlook 2005-2040
Attachment – Question 14 B – Neighborhood/Community Analysis
Attachment – Question 14 C – Public School Enrollment Projection 2011-2020
Attachment – Question 14 D – Demographic Data
15. Discuss the status of the media specialists and reading recovery programs including staffing
levels.
Media Specialists – FY 2013 requested budget an additional 26.40 media specialist positions
over the FY 2012 approved budget. This increase is the result of a change in the staffing formula
to a 0.50 FTE allotment at every elementary and middle school, 1.00 FTE at every high school,
and the schools ability to utilize their student-based budgeting funds to increase their allotment.
Currently, schools are staffed utilizing a formula that provides, at minimum, two days of service
and up to five days of service depending on the size and level of the school.
Reading Recovery – Reading Recovery is implemented in two ways. The first is a system wide
initiative in which 24 Reading Recovery teachers provide interventions to students for half of the
day and work with colleagues to improve reading instruction in the early grades. The second
implementation takes place when a school utilizes either Title I funding or Student-Based
budgeting funds to provide Reading Recovery services.
16. Provide a brief update on the transportation function review being conducted by the School
System.
PGCPS created the Transportation Task Force Committee independent of other county task force
initiatives to conduct a comprehensive review of operations, including cost effectiveness in PGCPS
Transportation Department. All Task Force participants remained engaged and provided input
through committees on various topics intrinsic to quality and cost effective transportation services.
Subcommittees were given access to Department of Transportation employees and sample
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 17
information from similar-sized jurisdictions. Data was made available to the subcommittees for
analysis and evaluation. The Committee, as a whole, maintained the objective to assist with
recommendations focused solely on a sustainable and cost effective transit system.
Reports from the subcommittees were concise and definitive. Highlights ranged from reducing bus
lots from 13 to three, installing more sidewalks, and grouping middle and high school routes.
Recommendations included initiatives that can move forward immediately, such as bell time
adjustments and a bus utilization study. Bell times are established by the Department of
Transportation to address efficiency of routes and eligible riders. The consolidation of bus lots, though
it will reduce operating costs significantly is more of a long-range goal that could require many
variables to be identified and approved, including the availability of resources.
A potential medium-range goal could be establishing a partnership between the County Police
Department to expand the Crossing Guard Unit to provide the opportunity for students to walk in more
areas and possibly decrease the requirement for school bus transportation. Another potential goal
would be for PGCPS to establish a partnership with the Department of Public Works and
Transportation to utilize The County Bus to transport students.
A long-range goal is to establish a comprehensive staff management software system. The software
system will be utilized to monitor, track and collect data as it pertains to employee attendance and
scheduled report time to duty. This data will be monitored to determine loss of productivity and impact
to the appropriated budget. Post-accident training, as well as loss prevention, will also be monitored
by this program.
17. Explain the impact the Charter schools have on the requested budget. Explain if there are
new Charter schools opening in FY 2013. What is the FY 2013 funding to support Charter
schools?
The FY 2013 requested operating budget includes $26 million to fund seven charter schools. There
are no new charter schools scheduled to open in FY 2013. There are approximately 2,889 students
projected to attend charter schools in FY 2013. Charter schools are funded on a per pupil basis; the
funding they receive is used to support their operation to include instructional and administrative
related expenses. The projected per pupil allocation is $8,590 per student (see page 87 of the FY
2013 requested operating budget book).
18. Explain the $6.3 million decrease in lease purchases under the Non-Departmental Section on
page A-1. Provide a list of the purchases, including dollar amounts.
The ($6.3) million net decrease in lease purchase funds identified under Non-Departmental
represents the retirement of the FY 2008 lease agreement ($84,89,786) and the $2,159,876 allocated
to support the FY 2013 lease agreement. See Attachment – Question 18 for the schedule of lease
purchases for FY 2013.
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 18
19. Explain the results of the latest OPEB actuarial study. What did the study require as the
School System’s contribution to the liability? What is the School System’s plan to meet the
liability? How much has the School System budgeted for this liability in FY 2013 and how
much is in reserves?
A new actuarial study is underway. The GASB Valuation for PGCPS will be completed no later than
August 31, 2012. The prior study required annual contributions that increased by $5 million each
year. The required contribution in FY 2012 was $26 million. Because of these changed
circumstances, it is expected that the discount rate will fall from 6.8% in FY 2011 to 4% in FYs2012.
The plan is to resume a level of payments required to pay the liability over a 20-year time horizon
once the revenue outlook stabilizes. No funding is budgeted in FY 2013; however, there is $2.68
million currently in the MABE OPEB trust.
20. Explain the financial status of the School System’s other Funds’ (i.e., risk management,
workers’ compensation, food services, etcetera).
Before & After School Fund – As of June 30, 2011, the Before and After School Fund contains
a positive fund balance amount of $2,226,330.
Food Services Fund – The Food Services fund generates revenue and expenditures as it
provides breakfast, lunch and snacks to students and adults in our schools. The balance for this
fund as of June 30, 2011, contained a negative fund balance amount of ($19,913,667).
Self-Insurance Fund – The Risk Management Fund and the Health Insurance Fund combined,
make up the Self Insurance Fund. As of June 30, 2011, the Self-Insurance Fund contained a
positive fund balance amount of $11,779,489. This surplus was used to offset the need to
increase Health Insurance premiums for both employees and the Board of Education for the
current plan year.
Workman’s Compensation – The school system belongs to a collaborative pool that provides
Worker‟s Compensation through a fund managed by Prince George‟s County Government.
There is not a separate fund for this benefit; however, premiums are paid annually to the Prince
George‟s County Government from the general fund.
Print Shop – The funds to maintain operations for the Print Shop are in a revolving account and
maintain no fund balance.
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 19
21. The Strategic Planning and Grants Development unit discusses migrating from the Master
Plan to a Strategic Plan. Explain the difference between the Master Plan and the Strategic
Plan, and if the Strategic Plan will still ensure compliance with the State Master Plan
requirements. Discuss why the School System is migrating from the Master Plan to a
Strategic Plan. Explain the advantages of the migration including any financial advantage.
Prince George's County Public Schools will continue to develop and submit an annual Bridge to
Excellence Master Plan in accordance with state requirements. However, the format and
requirements of the Master Plan result in a very large document that offers a retroactive view of the
Board's accomplishments. A Strategic Plan (tailored and formatted to suit the needs of PGCPS staff
and stakeholders) will intuitively and succinctly communicate the Board's five strategic goals, key
performance indicators, and the means by which those goals will be achieved. The Maryland State
Department of Education fully endorses this approach.
A precursor to the Strategic Plan- the PGCPS Strategic Overview - may be viewed at:
http://www1.pgcps.org/superintendent/.
22. Provide the funding the Board's requested budget includes for technology improvements.
Explain in detail what improvements and/or enhancements are planned for the School System.
As applicable, explain how these changes will improve instruction, and improve the
accounting, payroll and human resources systems.
In FY 2013, the school system will continue its investment in upgrading the network infrastructure in
various schools. This improvement will be the replacement of aging switches with managed switches
and the addition of a wireless network. This will allow staff and students access anytime, anywhere
while on site and allow for better management of the school‟s network. Staff at elementary schools
will receive replacement computing devices for their aging equipment.
There will be a continuation of plans to upgrade our enterprise architecture of both the ERP
(Enterprise Resource Planning) and SIS (Student Information System) to improve the management of
our user accounts (identity management), software upgrades to the latest version of the product, and
improve our back-up and disaster planning strategies. We are also planning the replacement of our
facilities work order system. Other areas of improvement will include some additional modules to the
ERP system: Human Talent Development and Learning Management System.
In FY 2012, the Information Technology Program at Fairmont Heights High School focused on
computer repair and operating systems. In FY 2013, students will choose an engineering or
programming path to develop their skills and become certified in these areas. In the spring of 2012, a
computer repair shop will be fully operational and run by students. In FY 2013, the IT High Program
will be offered at Gwynn Park High School. The program will be accepting 9th graders for the
“Computer Repair and Operating System” course.
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 20
Improvements and Enhancements
Infrastructure Upgrades
1) Wireless Infrastructure improvements
a) Increase the bandwidth
b) Increase the number of the system‟s wireless networks
2) Upgrade servers and storage to support the SIS and ERP infrastructure
3) Print Management
Software Maintenance
1) E-Scholar data warehouse maintenance
2) Increase in Microsoft Enterprise licensing
3) Oracle Business Intelligence Enterprise Edition Software Maintenance
4) Business Analytics for Human Resources, Purchasing and Supply Chain Software Maintenance
Student Applications
Student applications uses technology to support instruction, to improve student outcomes in various
subjects, to communicate with parents and other stakeholders while providing decision making data
for the school district.
1) SchoolMAX Production Support Release and upgrade
a) Testing
b) Graduation Standard
c) SchoolMAX Parent Portal Enhancements
2) Legacy Decommission Project
a) Tuition Billing
b) ESOL
c) Microfilm
3) Special Education Response to Intervention (RTI) - Phase II
4) Drop Out Prevention
5) Data Quality System (Certica Solutions)
6) State Reporting
7) Mobile Applications
8) PMAPP data
9) Security Office System
10) Memorial Library System and Parks and Recreation Project common Library card project.
11) MSDE Data warehouse Data Collection Project
12) PE Department - Fitness gram system integration with SchoolMAX.
13) Teacher Performance Project – Evaluation/Appraisal module
14) Elementary, Middle and High School Scheduling (PS2000 app and operational support)
15) Electronic Transcript Service
16) Textbooks
17) Swipe Card Attendance (Bus Drivers)
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 21
Business Applications
Business applications uses technology to support all supplemental areas to instruction, such as accounting, payroll and human resources to orchestrate the daily operations of the school district;
1) Custom Budgeting Module and Support
2) Reporting System for MBE
3) EDI Interface for Verizon
4) Automation of CIP Accounting process
5) Automation of Field trip approval and submission
6) Asset Management System
7) iRecruitment enhancements
8) HCM Self Service Modules Implementation (Leave Management is part of this). There are many
more Employee and Manager Functionalities that can be implemented.
9) SCLogic integration with Oracle for digital signature capturing
10) HR Process Flow Enhancements
11) Completed Local 2250/400 Appraisal
12) R12 Upgrade
13) Hyperion
23. Explain the status of the staff development activities and whether the funding being provided
in FY 2013 for staff development is sufficient, and if not, explain what will not be accomplished
and what impact this will have (i.e., planned initiatives that will not be carried out).
PGCPS has experienced drastic decreases in funding for professional development over the last
three years. This decrease has led to a need to focus on school-based, job-embedded learning and
growth opportunities that cost less. As the instructional leaders in each school, principals now have
the primary charge for building and sustaining the capacity of their instructional staff. The system is
in the process of developing leader capacity for this work through differentiated professional
development supported by the area offices. Additionally, the development of intra-school
professional learning communities (PLCs) around current issues such as Algebra and Early Reading
will be an essential component of the new construct. Our major professional development work is in
the following areas:
Framework for Teaching – Prince George‟s County Public Schools has adopted the Framework
for Teaching (FfT™) observation tool. Since its inception, FfT™ has created opportunities for
administrators and teachers to have collaborative conversations around classroom instruction. In
FYs2012, 25% of the PGCPS teaching force is being observed with the FfT™ tool. In FY 2013,
the plan is that the entire teaching force will be observed using the FfT™ tool.
National Institute of School Leaders (NISL) - NISL is a powerful professional development
program for practicing school of leaders that is research based on best practices. This 15-18
month intensive training program will begin in late January. Training will be held during school
hours on Mondays and Tuesdays and select Saturdays. Ten meetings will take place this school
year. The training is a component of the PGCPS Leadership Experiences for Aspiring Principals
(LEAPP) program.
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 22
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) - This professional growth
program is multifaceted. Part I. The Leadership Immersion Institute – This institute provides
principals and other administrators‟ effective strategies on how to integrate best practices in
mentoring and adult learning with participants‟ experiences. Part II. National Principals Mentor
Certification Program - Principals who choose certification will follow the institute with a nine-
month Mentor-in-Training (NAESP) internship. Interns, under the caring and watchful eye of a
trained coach, choose a protégé, engage in effective listening and questioning strategies, and
provide guidance and support to new principals. Interns interact with coaches and other trainees
through electronic bulletin boards, chats, and threaded discussions, as well as periodic portfolio
submissions. Principals who complete both the institute and the internship are awarded national
certification as a principal.
School Leaders Network - This professional growth program establishes communities of
practice for public school principals to work together, to solve real problems, and create change,
school-by-school, so that all children in under-resourced communities graduate with college-
ready skills. The work focuses on three topics relevant to school leaders: 1) the role of the
principal as instructional leader, 2) communicating the principal‟s complex role to the community,
and 3) mentoring.
Continuing Professional Development (CPD) - The Continuing Professional Development
Program (CPD) offers teachers and administrators a full range of opportunities to engage in high
quality course work to meet MSDE certification and/or recertification goals to build teacher
capacity and increase the mastery of the effectiveness of their teaching practices. Courses are
facilitated by trained teacher leaders who receive their professional development through the
annual Instructor Academy.
National Board Certification (NBCT-LD) - The PGCPS NBCT-LD program is the ninth fastest-
growing National Board program in the country, and ranks third in the number of NBCTs in the
state of Maryland. NBCT-LD program is a professional development program that builds the
mentoring, coaching, and leadership skills of NBCTs, and PGCPS teachers in NBCT cohort
programs. The NBCT-LD program provides comprehensive support to PGCPS teachers wishing
to pursue National Board Certification.
Mentor Teachers - Mentor teachers provide support to all new teachers, which is in line with
state regulations regarding new teacher induction.
Professional Educator Induction Program (PEIP) - PEIP provides training and assistance to
teachers new to PGCPS. Initial training is offered in the summer, prior to beginning the first year
of teaching. Per COMAR regulations, mentor support must also be provided for all new teachers
as part of a comprehensive induction program beginning FY13.
Professional Development Schools (PDS) – A PDS is a collaboratively planned and
implemented partnership in 32 schools focusing on improving the academic and clinical
preparation of interns and providing continuous professional development of both school system
and institutions of higher education (IHE) faculty. The major focus of the PDS partnership is to
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 23
improve student performance through research-based teaching and learning and to encourage
teacher retention through onsite professional development for school-based personnel.
In order to meet the professional development needs of our current workforce, the Division of Human
Resources and the Division of Academics work together to prioritize activities that benefit the most
number of teachers. With the proposed funding for FY 2013, the system will sustain its present
activities by offering Continuing Professional Development (CPD) credit for some of the training in
which teachers participate in after school.
In addition, the system will continue to seek out grant funding to support our professional
development efforts. A large percentage of the remaining funds from the Empowering Effective
Teaching grant funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation were restructured to directly support
teacher development and engagement in areas designed to support the continuous improvement of
teaching practice related to teacher evaluation reform. A sizeable percentage of the restructured
funds will be dedicated to teacher training stipends and teacher engagement activities. Likewise,
funds from PGCPS' portion of Maryland's Race to the Top funds are being used to support many of
the activities above.
Finally, in FY 2012, PGCPS was one of six school districts nationwide to receive funding from the
Wallace Foundation to focus on the identification, selection and support of candidates for the
principalship. With an award of over $12 million, PGCPS will be able to focus these funds on the
single biggest level of change at any school - the principal.
In short, coupled with grant funding, the proposed FY 2013 budget will allow PGCPS to carry out
these activities. PGCPS is developing a system wide strategic professional development plan to
carry this work forward beyond FY 2013.
24. Describe how successful current and prior year efforts have been to increase the number of
certified teachers. Describe your current efforts and future efforts to increase the number of
certified teachers in the school system. Provide how many teachers are currently not
certified. How many of the new hires (teachers) in FY 2011 and FY 2012 were certified and
how many were not certified?
The Office of Recruitment and Certification and Instructional Personnel have successfully partnered
in recruiting and hiring fully certified teachers to fill all vacant instructional positions over the past five
years. Nationally, the need for critical subject areas remains high (special education, math, science
and foreign languages); however PGCPS has been successful in filling teaching positions in a
relatively short period with fully certified candidates.
Expanded recruitment efforts including in-district targeted teacher job fairs for critical subject areas
and turn-around schools, national, state and local career events sponsored and/or attended by
PGCPS recruiters yielded sizeable pools of fully certified and diverse candidates who span the
spectrum highly experienced and new to the profession. On-line recruiting using various job banks (i-
Recruitment, Teachers-Teachers.com) also increased the pool of fully certified teachers from which
building administrators could fill vacant position. Additional recruitment sources include four Resident
Teacher programs (PGC Resident Teacher Program, Teach for America, Maryland Math and Science
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 24
Resident Teacher Program, College of Notre Dame Dual Special Education Resident Teacher
Program) and the Professional Development School (PDS) partnerships with local colleges and
universities (student teachers). Using a base line of 9,000 teachers over the past 8 years, the
percent of provisional teachers has decreased from 1,279 or 14.2% in 2003-2004 to a noteworthy low
for 2011-2012 of 0.2% or 18 teachers.
The NCLB federal legislation for Highly Qualified staff was a major impetus for the system to increase
efforts to hire and retain certified and then highly qualified staff who were assigned only to their
certification area(s). Annually the MSDE Class Level Membership List (CLM file) is examined by
Certification and Instructional Staffing specialists and is used to ensure teachers are appropriately
certified and placed in accordance with their professional certificate areas. In FY 2011 PGCPS
reported 100% Highly Qualified in Title I schools and 91.5% system wide.
Due to expanded out-of-state recruitment efforts, HR instructional staffing and certification specialists
are heavily involved in the pre-screening of candidates prior to hiring to ensure contracts are
extended to those who meet MSDE requirements. Process mapping work underway in Human
Resources is designed to ensure that appropriate systems are in place to streamline and increase the
accuracy of credential review prior to contract offering. The new process and procedures resulted in
a 98% of 2011-2012 new hires being MSDE certified with only 13 new hires on Conditional
certificates. Conditional certificate holders are provided a specific timeline to meet MSDE professional
certificate requirements. (Note that professional certificates revert to conditional certificates if a
teacher does not complete renewal requirements).
As of April 10, 2012, PGCPS has a total of 18 teachers teaching on MSDE Conditional certificates in
the following subject areas:
Trades and Industry: 5
Foreign Languages: 4
Special Education: 3
Health and P.E.: 1
Elementary\ECE: 3
English: 1
Computer Science: 1
Figure 1 – Retention Data
Fiscal
Year
Total # of
Teachers
Death
Retirement
Voluntary
Involuntary
Total
Percentage
2006 10,000 16 198 677 578 1469 14.6%
2007 10,000 7 203 866 294 1370 13.7%
2008 10,000 11 189 774 321 1295 12.9%
2009 10,000 15 176 945 825 1961 19.6%
2010 9,000 11 199 400 60 670 7%
2011 9,000 10 431 372 130 943 10.4%
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 25
25. What percentage of the teacher work force left in FY 2011? Was this percentage unusually
large compared with normal experience? How many teachers do you project will leave this
summer? How successful has the school system been in retaining teachers and principals
since salaries have been more competitive with other jurisdictions?
During FY 2011, PGCPS experienced 10.4% attrition of our teaching workforce. In comparison to the
past six fiscal years the FY 2011 attrition percentage is the second lowest with FY 2012 attrition at
7%, the lowest experienced in the past 10 years. PGCPS has experienced double digit attrition in
the low teens with average of 13% overall. The largest loss of teachers occurred at the end of
FYs2009 due to the termination of 417 provisional teachers who failed to meet Maryland State
Department of Education requirements for a full professional teaching certificate. PGCPS has and
will continue to experience the loss of foreign national teachers due to the imposed federal debarment
(FY 2011 loss of 10, FY 2012 loss of 245, FY 2013 loss of 218, and FY 2014 loss of 128). In
addition, the retirement incentive offered in FY 2011 increased the number of eligible retirees leaving
the system.
Overall attrition in PGCPS, at least for the present time, is lower than the national average. The
National Commission on Teaching and America‟s Future cites the national teacher turnover rate in
2011 was 16.8% and in large urban school systems attrition is typically over 20%. Likewise NCTAF
cites that 46% of teachers new to the profession leave within 5 years.
(Forbes,http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/03/08/high-teacher-turnover-rates-are-a-big-
problem-for-americas-public-schools/).
PGCPS projects that on average, 10% of the teaching workforce will leave the school system this
year. This percentage is primarily based on retirements, foreign national teacher losses, and
involuntary and voluntary separations. During the 2012 Teacher Forums, compensation issues
particularly the loss of step increases and salary lane changes for educational gains surfaced as
critical issues. PGCPS began conducting monthly exit surveys in October 2011. Teachers cited the
following reasons for leaving the school system: Lack of support and working conditions, building
level leadership, student discipline and compensation.
26. Explain the impact of the retirement incentive plan on retirements. Provide how many
employees retired through the plan by type of position. Will the School System have an
incentive plan in FY 2013?
The retirement incentive doubled the number of retirees during FY 2011, mitigating the loss of jobs
from the reduction-in-force. The incentive was cost neutral to PGCPS. Criteria used to determine
approval of the incentive were as follows:
Positions in that area were being cut and approval of the incentive preserved FTE.
The employee requesting the incentive was being paid at the upper end of the pay scale and
was able to be replaced at a lower salary.
In FY 2011, the first year that the incentive was offered, 668 employees applied of whom 554 were
approved. A total of 863 employees retired from PGCPS during FY 2011. The number of retirees by
bargaining unit during FY 2011 is detailed in the chart below:
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 26
Bargaining Unit Total Retirees Received Incentive
ACE/AFSCME 290 130
ASASP II 54 37
ASASP III 19 11
EXEC 9 3
PGCEA 434 344
SEIU 57 28
Total 863 553
In FY 2012, 421 employees applied for the retirement incentive, of which 377 were approved. Since
many have not yet completed their applications, it is difficult to project a final number of employees,
but we expect that around 500 to 550 will retire during this fiscal year. The numbers who have been
approved for the incentive with a comparison to last year provided below:
Bargaining Unit FY 2011 FY 2012
ACE/AFSCME 130 102
ASASP II 37 25
ASASP III 11 10
Executive 3 5
PGCEA 344 205
SEIU 28 30
Total 553 377
No decision has been made to offer a retirement incentive in FY 2013 as of this date.
27. Provide the number of teachers that are eligible to retire over the next four years.
There are 1,761 teachers eligible to retire over the next four years. The breakdown is provided
below:
Bargaining Unit Retirement Total
PGCEA Age 1,348
Service 413
PGCEA Total 1,761
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 27
28. What has the School System budgeted for leave payouts? Explain if any accumulated costs
associated with unfunded leave have been deferred.
For FY 2013, Prince Georges County Public Schools has budgeted $6,950,427 for Terminal Leave
payouts. All accrued annual leave is payable upon separation from employment up to the stated
maximum. Earned leave is recognized as expenditure in the governmental funds upon employee
termination.
29. What is the present status of labor negotiations? Which union contracts have been
negotiated and what is the anticipated date for those not concluded to date? If any have been
concluded, what is the cost-of-living adjustment they will receive? Provide a list of all
bargaining groups and the number of employees represented by each group.
Negotiations with ACE-AFSCME Local 2250 have been underway since June 2011. There have
been numerous negotiation sessions held, with the next, and hopefully final one scheduled for Friday,
April 13, 2012. Negotiations with ASASP began recently and will continue in the near future.
Negotiations with PGCEA begin next week. Negotiations with SEIU are in the process of being
scheduled now.
No cost-of-living adjustments are, or are proposed to be, on the table with any of the labor unions
representing school system employees. One-time payments have been proposed by the Board
(1/2% for FY 2012 and 1% for FY 2013).
The bargaining groups and the number of employees represented by each group are provided below:
Bargaining Unit
Employees Represented
Number of
Employees
PGCEA (Prince George‟s County Educators‟
Association) (Unit I)
Teachers and other non-
administrative and non-supervisory
professionally certificated
personnel.
9,188
ASASP Unit II (Association of Supervisory and
Administrative School Personnel) (Unit II)
Administrative and supervisory
professionally certificated
personnel.
684
ASASP Unit III (Association of Supervisory and
Administrative School Personnel) (Unit III)
Administrative and supervisory
non-certificated personnel.
321
ACE-AFSCME Local 2250 (Association of Classified
Employees)
All non-certificated non-
supervisory personnel other than
custodial staff.
5,705
SEIU Local 400 (Service Employees International
Union Local 400 Prince George‟s County CTW-
CLC)
Non-certificated custodial staff. 1,177
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 28
30. What contingency amount has been set aside for salary increments (cost-of-living adjustment,
etc.)? How much of that funding would go to teachers? Will some of those funds go for pay
scale adjustments in addition to an across-the-board cost-of-living adjustment? Discuss how
County teachers’ salaries compare with other local jurisdictions.
In the FY 2013 budget, $18 million is set aside for negotiations. PGCPS employees have had no
COLA or step increases for three years. In addition, they have endured furloughs and the loss of
stipends and differentials, as well as the loss of tuition reimbursement. PGCPS believes it is at a
critical juncture in terms of doing something for its hard-working employees to avoid increasing
attrition and vacancy rates. How available funds are used for each unit must be determined through
the negotiations process. The amount set aside for teachers will be negotiated.
In order to maintain the system‟s competitiveness with surrounding counties for attracting and
retaining staff, it is critical to address compensation, particularly for teachers. PGCPS has lost its
edge with surrounding counties. Current teachers are leaving the system while continuing to live in
the county acquiring raises from other districts to maintain the cost of living in the area. Currently,
PGCPS is starting to lose ground in the beginning teacher salary category. Several compensation
issues surfaced with experienced teachers and administrator salaries as indicated in the salary
comparison table below from MSDE for FY 2011. A comparison of teacher salaries is provided
below:
Starting Salary Comparison
County Teacher Professional
Staff
Assistant
Principal
Principal
Anne Arundel $43,452 $68,349 $103,688 $121,443
Montgomery $46,410 $77,853 $116,005 $131,821
Prince George‟s $44,799 $69,156 $97,596 $115,953
Teacher Salary Comparison
County Starting Mid-Level Maximum
Anne Arundel $43,452 $63,161 $90,520
Montgomery $46,410 $73,038 $103,634
Prince George‟s $44,799 $63,793 $91,752
31. Provide a status update on the number of reconstitution eligible schools. Explain what
schools were added or deleted from the State list, what activities are presently ongoing at the
schools, and what other schools are in danger of possible inclusion in the State process.
Schools are no longer identified as reconstitution eligible. Since 2003, the State has identified
schools requiring improvement under a Differentiated Accountability Model. Schools failing to meet
adequate yearly progress for six or more years are required to implement alternative governance
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 29
plans to enhance and improve performance. Currently there are 29 schools in Prince George's
County Public Schools implementing alternative governance plans.
Among the individual school based strategies and activities, schools implementing alternative
governance plans are also enhancing instruction through the implementation of the Data Wise School
Improvement Process, collaborative planning, Universal Design and Response to Intervention.
Twenty six (26) schools failed to meet annual yearly progress on the 2011 state assessment and
entered into the first year of improvement.
One (1) school exited school improvement based on 2011 MSA performance.
32. Provide the most recent listing, by school, of current school capacities, and current
enrollment levels.
See Attachment – Question 32 for the Official 2012 PGCPS Enrollment and Capacity Listing.
33. Provide a list of what projects were completed under this year’s maintenance projects.
See Attachment – Question 33 for the list of maintenance projects completed this year.
34. Provide a list of all planned maintenance/repair activities (i.e., code corrections, major/minor
repairs) that are included in the requested budget.
Attachment – Question 34 provides the FY 2013 – 2018 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
provides a summary of the funding request and the various types of projects that will potentially take
place during FY 2013.
35. Discuss the status of student attendance. What is the current attendance rate and how does
this compare to FY 2011. Discuss the status of the School System’s efforts regarding truancy,
including the status of the implementation of pupil personnel workers and efforts in
conjunction with the judicial systems.
The current attendance present rate is 94.11% for the time period of August 22, 2011 through April
10, 2012, compared to 93.51% August 23, 2010 through April 15, 2011. The data reflects a 0.60 %
increase in the system-wide attendance present data. The system will continue to implement
attendance strategies and interventions to continue the upward trend.
The Division of Student Services will continue a collaborative approach to providing coordinated
services to schools to maintain attendance standards for elementary and middle schools, which
resulted in students in all but one subgroup meeting or exceeding the annual measurable objective in
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 30
attendance. A targeted plan was developed to increase the rate of attendance for students which
resulted in a decrease in the number of habitually truant students, however, more intensive and cross
department strategies have been identified to address attendance for all high school subgroups.
In accordance with Administrative Procedure 5113-Student Attendance, absence and truancy pupil
personnel workers have worked with school counselors, administrators, and other staff in School
Instructional Teams and school based Attendance Committees to implement attendance plans that
address proactive steps for the prevention of truancy. Realign work of pupil personnel workers to
target support to high schools, middle schools and high needs elementary school. The goal of the
pupil personnel worker is to identify at-risk students early. Attendance teams meet with students who
have been identified as having missed 10% or more of the school days during the prior year and their
parents during the first month of school. School based teams meet with students and parents after
the first and second instance of truancy. After the third instance of truancy pupil personnel workers
meet with parents and school staff to determine positive and supportive interventions through system
or community involvement. Pupil personnel workers work with the school team to develop an
attendance plan for each student signed by the student, parent and school personnel, outlining
specific steps for promoting regular attendance. Each school also developed attendance benchmarks
and targets and monitor on a bi-weekly basis
An initiative brought a more targeted focus to addressing truant students. As part of this initiative,
pupil personnel workers developed lists of students with 15 or more days of absence, and schools
contacted parents of these students to determine if absence reasons were lawful if there appeared to
be reason to suspect truancy. Schools and pupil personnel workers then additionally assessed the
situations for each student and took action appropriate for the students. Referral to school teams,
counseling agencies, and the Interagency Council or Truancy Reduction Court, via the Court Liaison,
were made for families needing additional interventions. Additional strategies were implemented for
truant high school students. The supervisor of Pupil Personnel Services met with the pupil personnel
workers assigned to high schools to review plans and progress, and to develop additional strategies
for students. These pupil personnel workers will again review plans monthly with the Court Liaison
and Special Projects Officer to assess progress and develop additional strategies for school
attendance.
Once pupil personnel workers refer chronically truant students, the office of the court liaison is
responsible for coordinating with multiple agencies, inclusive of, but not limited to the judicial system,
through the Interagency Council on Attendance (IAC). The Interagency Council provides services to
students. Representatives from the Department of Social Services, Health Services, Pupil Personnel,
Psychological Services, Special Education, Juvenile Justice, Police Department, Mental Health, State
Attorney‟s Office, Public Defender Office and other county agencies develop a plan to secure county-
wide assistance for the student and his/her family. The Interagency Council meets twice a month. All
agencies are present to hear cases. Pupil Personnel Workers present truant cases to the
Interagency Council on School attendance concerns. The agencies provide support to the families by
coordinating services and resources for families with truant children.
Additionally, the school system collaborates with the judiciary‟s implementation of the Middle School
Truancy Reduction Court (TRC). The focus of the TRC is to work closely with the truant student and
his or her parents or guardians to improve school attendance. The Court reviews the student‟s
attendance records and gathers information from multiple sources; the school, the student and the
Prince George‟s County Public Schools Business Management Services
FY 2013 Requested Operating Budget
Responses: 03.26.12 Office of Audits & Investigations 31
family to develop a plan to support and sustain improved attendance. The Court focuses on the use
of positive reinforcement for improvements in school attendance.
36. Explain the status of student performance on the High School Assessments (HSA).
The High School Assessments (H.S.A.) are four exams that students who entered the 9th grade in or
after 2005 must pass in order to satisfy one of several graduation requirements once reaching senior
class student status. The exams are given during the months of October, January, April, May, and
June and cover the subject areas of Algebra/Data Analysis, Biology, Government, and English.
Students who take a high-school-level, HSA-related course must take the HSA exam once they
successfully complete the course. The HSA exam is aligned with the Maryland High School Core
Learning Goals, which were developed by Maryland teachers and education experts.
As of March 2012, as it relates to the 2011-2012 school year, there are 8,243 senior students
enrolled. Approximately 54% have passed all four of the HSA, 20% have met the HSA requirement
by meeting the 1,652 composite score, and 5% have met the requirement by completing Academic
Validation Projects (AVP). To assist these students, the High School Performance Office will
continue to implement the following intervention and support measures:
Weekly Project Submissions
State Waivers
AVP Projects
37. Provide a listing of the number of temporary school buildings by school location.
Attachment – Question 37 provides a listing of temporary school buildings by location.
38. Provide a listing of the non-profit organizations (i.e., Teach for America, College Summit,
Hillside, etcetera) that assist, provide services, or work with the School System, including
what services or activities they provide, funding provided, how many schools are affected,
and how they relate to accomplishing the School System’s objectives.
The system is beginning to collect the profit status of our vendors, but we do not have the data at this
time.
Community Analysis
57
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.
Attachment - Question 14A
Section 4
58
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 2015 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 non-residential 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 in-fill 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
Attachment - Question 14A
Community Analysis
59
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
Attachment - Question 14A
Section 4
60
The following maps illustrate the geographic distribution of growth during the forecast period. They highlight the concentrations of residential and employment growth.
Attachment - Question 14A
Community Analysis
61
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 2015 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 2015 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 2015 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 2015 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 2015 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 2015. Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars.
Attachment - Question 14A
Section 4
62
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).
Source: The M-NCPPC – Annual Housing Completed Construction in Prince George’s County (3/2011) 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.
Year Single Family Units
Multiple Family Units
Total Number 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
Attachment - Question 14A
Community Analysis
63
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.
Attachment - Question 14A
Community Analysis
77
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 owner-occupied 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.”
Attachment - Question 14B
Section 4
78
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.
Attachment - Question 14B
Maryland Department of Planning
Public SchoolEnrollment Projections
2011 - 2020
ax2 bx c 0
Attachment - Question 14C
State of Maryland
Martin O’MalleyGovernor
Anthony G. BrownLt. Governor
Maryland Department of Planning
Richard Eberhart Hall, AICPSecretary
Matthew J. PowerDeputy Secretary
Maryland Department of Planning301 West Preston Street, Suite 1101Baltimore, Maryland 21201Tel: 410.767.4500 Toll Free: 1.877.767.6272TTY users: Maryland Relayvisit: Planning.Maryland.gov
Public School Enrollment Projections, 2011 - 2020 September 2011 Publication No. 2010-015
This Public School Enrollment Projections report was produced by the Maryland Department of Planning as a service to local governments and planning officials.
Attachment - Question 14C
FOREWORD This report, Public School Enrollment Projections 2011‐2020, is an update of the Maryland Department of Planning’s annual report on public school enrollment statistics. The report provides projections of public school enrollment through 2020 by grade for each of the counties of the State and Baltimore City. Statistics on actual total and public school enrollment for 2000‐2010 are also included. The public school enrollment projections utilize the Maryland Department of Planning’s population projections by age and sex for each jurisdiction. The population projections are used to derive school‐age population (persons 5‐17 years of age) and projected births. These projections are then used in conjunction with a “grade succession” methodology to derive the ten‐year, grade‐specific enrollment projections. By the end of 2011, thousands of jobs and associated households are expected to have relocated to Maryland as a result of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC). The impact of these households was accounted for in this report to the extent that they are reflected in the Maryland Department of Planning’s population projections. These projections are prepared within a cooperative forecasting process involving the two Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the Baltimore, Suburban Washington and Southern Maryland regions as well as local jurisdictions. A preliminary set of enrollment projections along with supporting materials documenting the projection methodology were sent previously to each School Superintendent and facility planner. Copies of this report have been sent to all local school systems. Additional copies of this report can be requested from the Maryland Department of Planning, (410) 767‐4500.
Attachment - Question 14C
Attachment - Question 14C
CONTENTS Page Foreword ................................................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 7
A. Statewide Total ............................................................................................................................................... 7 B. Jurisdiction Trends ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Long‐Term Statewide Demographic Perspective ..................................................................... 13
A. Births ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 B. Migration ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
B.1 Domestic Migration in the 1980s & 1990s ....................................................................................... 16 B.2 Post 2000 Domestic Migration ......................................................................................................... 17 B.3 Migration and Economic Vitality ...................................................................................................... 17 B.4 Migration and Relative Housing Prices ........................................................................................... 18 B.5 Foreign Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s .................................................................................. 18 B.6 Post 2000 Foreign Immigration and Total Migration ...................................................................... 18 B.7 Foreign Immigration and Population Growth .................................................................................. 19 B.8 Intra State Migration ........................................................................................................................ 23 B.9 Public/Private Enrollment Share ..................................................................................................... 23
Trends and Projections in Public School Enrollment by Type .................................................. 25
A. Total Public School Enrollment ............................................................................................................ 25 B. Public Elementary School Enrollment (grades K thru 5) ...................................................................... 25 C. Public Middle School Enrollment (grades 6 thru 8) .............................................................................. 26 D. Public High School Enrollment (grades 9 thru 12) ............................................................................... 27
Jurisdiction Projections Over the Next Ten Years ................................................................... 29
A. Total Enrollment .................................................................................................................................. 29 B. Elementary School Enrollment ............................................................................................................ 35 C. Middle School Enrollment ................................................................................................................... 39 D. High School Enrollment ...................................................................................................................... 43
Listing of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Historical and Projected Public School Enrollment for Maryland ................................ 8
Table 2 Summary of Historical and Projected Total Public School Enrollment for Maryland’s Jurisdictions ................................................................................................. 12
Table 3 Net Domestic Migration Estimates for Maryland’s Jurisdictions, April 1, 2000 to July 2009 ........ 21
Table 4 Total Public School Enrollment (Grades K‐12) by Jurisdiction,
Actual (2010) and Projected (2011‐2020) ............................................................................ 30
Attachment - Question 14C
Table 5 Cumulative Change in Total Public School Enrollment (Grades K‐12)
from Actual 2010 by Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... 31
Table 6 Cumulative Percent Change in Total Public School Enrollment (Grades K‐12) from Actual 2010 by Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... 32
Table 7 Public Elementary School Enrollment (Grades K‐5) by Jurisdiction,
Actual (2010) and Projected (2011‐2020) ............................................................................ 36 Table 8 Cumulative Change in Public Elementary School Enrollment (Grades K‐5)
from Actual 2010 by Jurisdiction ......................................................................................... 37
Table 9 Cumulative Percent Change in Public Elementary School Enrollment (Grades K‐5) from Actual 2010 by Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... 38
Table 10 Public Middle School Enrollment (Grades 6‐8) by Jurisdiction,
Actual (2010) and Projected (2011‐2020) ............................................................................ 40
Table 11 Cumulative Change in Public Middle School Enrollment (Grades 6‐8) from Actual 2010 by Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... 41
Table 12 Cumulative Percent Change in Public Middle School Enrollment (Grades 6‐8)
from Actual 2010 by Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... 42
Table 13 Public High School Enrollment (Grades 9‐12) by Jurisdiction, Actual 2010 and Projected (2011– 2020) ............................................................................. 44
Table 14 Cumulative Change in Public High School Enrollment (Grades 9‐12) from Actual 2010 by Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... 45
Table 15 Cumulative Percent Change in Public High School Enrollment (Grades 9‐12)
from Actual 2010 by Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... 46 Listing of Charts
Chart 1 Historical Annual Change in Total Public School Enrollment in Maryland, 2000‐2010..................... 7 Chart 2 Projected Annual Change in Total Public School Enrollment in Maryland, 2011‐2020 .................... 9
Chart 3 Projected Annual Change in Public Elementary School Enrollment in Maryland, 2011‐2020 .......... 9 Chart 4 Projected Annual Change in Public Middle School Enrollment in Maryland, 2011‐2020 ............... 10 Chart 5 Projected Annual Change in Public High School Enrollment in Maryland, 2011‐2020 ................... 10 Chart 6 Total Public School Enrollment in Maryland, 1970 ‐ 2020 .............................................................. 13 Chart 7 Total Births in Maryland, 1940 – 2015 ........................................................................................... 14
Chart 8 Cumulative Births by School Year in Maryland, 1970 ‐ 2020 ......................................................... 15 Chart 9 Annual Change in Cumulative Births by School Year in Maryland, 1971 ‐2020 .............................. 15
Attachment - Question 14C
Chart 10 Annualized Net Domestic Migration and Foreign Immigration into Maryland .............................. 16
Chart 11 Annualized Total Net Migration for Maryland ................................................................................ 19
Chart 12 Foreign Immigration as a Percent of Total Population Gain, 2000 – 2010 .................................... 20
Chart 13 Change in Total Public School Enrollment in Maryland by Race & Hispanic Origin, 2000 2010 .................................................................................................................................... 22
Chart 14 Percent Change in Total Public School Enrollment in Maryland by Race & Hispanic Origin, 2000 ‐ 2010 ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Chart 15 Public Elementary School Enrollment in Maryland, 1972 ‐ 2020 .................................................... 26
Chart 16 Public Middle School Enrollment in Maryland, 1972 ‐ 2020 ........................................................... 27
Chart 17 Public High School Enrollment in Maryland, 1972 ‐ 2020 ............................................................... 28
Chart 18 Public School Enrollment Change by Jurisdiction, 2010 ‐2020 ....................................................... 29 Chart 19 Public School Enrollment Percent Change by Jurisdiction, 2010 ‐2020 ......................................... 33
Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 47 Organization of Detailed Data Tables ..................................................................................... 50 Section One: State of Maryland ...................................................................................................................... 52
State of Maryland ................................................................................................................................................. 53 A. Total (Public and Private) Historical Enrollments 2000 2010 ................................................................. 53 B. Percent of Total School Enrollment Public 2000 2010 ........................................................................... 54 C. Public School Historical Enrollments 2000 2010 .................................................................................... 55 D. Public School Enrollment Historical 2010 and Projected 2011 2020 ...................................................... 56 E. Ratio Kindergarten and First Grade to Births Historical and Projected .................................................. 57
Section Two: Baltimore City and the Counties .......................................................................................... 58
Baltimore City ....................................................................................................................................................... 59
A. Total (Public and Private) Historical Enrollments 2000 2010 ................................................................. 59 B. Percent of Total School Enrollment Public 2000 2010 ........................................................................... 60 C. Public School Historical Enrollments 2000 2010 .................................................................................... 61 D. Public School Enrollment Historical 2010 and Projected 2011 2020 ...................................................... 62 E. Ratio Kindergarten and First Grade to Births Historical and Projected .................................................. 63 F. Grade Succession Ratios Historical ......................................................................................................... 64
Allegany County.................................................................................................................................................... 66
Attachment - Question 14C
Anne Arundel County ........................................................................................................................................... 73 Baltimore County ................................................................................................................................................. 80 Calvert County ...................................................................................................................................................... 87 Caroline County .................................................................................................................................................... 94 Carroll County ..................................................................................................................................................... 101 Cecil County ........................................................................................................................................................ 108 Charles County ................................................................................................................................................... 115 Dorchester County ............................................................................................................................................. 122 Frederick County ................................................................................................................................................ 129 Garrett County ................................................................................................................................................... 136 Harford County ................................................................................................................................................... 143 Howard County .................................................................................................................................................. 150 Kent County ........................................................................................................................................................ 157 Montgomery County .......................................................................................................................................... 164 Prince George's County ...................................................................................................................................... 171 Queen Anne's County ......................................................................................................................................... 178 St. Mary' s County .............................................................................................................................................. 185 Somerset County ................................................................................................................................................ 192 Talbot County ..................................................................................................................................................... 199 Washington County ............................................................................................................................................ 206 Wicomico County ............................................................................................................................................... 213 Worcester County .............................................................................................................................................. 220
Section Three: Summary of School Enrollment by Jurisdiction ........................................................ 227
Total and Public School Enrollment .................................................................................................................... 228
A. Total (Public and Private) Historical Enrollments 2000 2010 .................................................... 228 B. Percent of Total School Enrollment Public 2000 2010 ............................................................... 229 C. Public School Historical Enrollments 2000 2010 ........................................................................ 230 D. Public School Enrollment Historical 2010 and Projected 2011 2020 .......................................... 231
Attachment - Question 14C
Executive Summary
A. Statewide Totals
Maryland’s total public school enrollment increased in 2010 for the second consecutive year after five straight years of enrollment losses. The 2,958 student gain in 2010 (0.4%) was slightly larger than the 2,673 (0.3%) increase in 2009. Over the prior five years (2003‐2008), statewide losses totaled just under 30,800 (‐3.6%). (See Chart 1.) Growth in 2009 and 2010 is attributed in part to a lower share of total enrollment attending private schools – one of the economic effects of the Great Recession.
Despite gains in the last two years, Maryland’s 2010 public school enrollment of 822,600 is about 25,100 (‐3.0%) below the peak enrollment of 847,700 in 2003. The reduction from this peak period is due to both smaller birth cohorts and fairly strong domestic out migration not fully compensated for by gains through foreign immigration.
Total public school enrollment is projected to increase in each of the next 10 years, but growth will be much more substantial in the latter half of the decade (2015 to 2020). (See Chart 2.) The greater growth in the latter five‐year period is due to the larger number of births earlier in the decade.
Total public school enrollment in 2020 is projected to be just above 880,300, approximately 57,700 (7.0%) more than in 2010. (See Table 1.) The 2020 enrollment would be a new peak total for Maryland.
7,359
5,845
1,548
‐5,541‐6,370
‐9,845
‐7,432
‐1,571
2,673 2,958
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Chart 1. Historical Annual Change in Total Public School Enrollment in Maryland, 2000 ‐ 2010 *
*Grades K thru 12Prepared by the Maryland Department of PlanningSource: Maryland State Department of Education
Attachment - Question 14C
Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected PEAK PEAKSCHOOL 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 YEAR TOTALTOTAL ENROLLMENT (K ‐ 12) 832,970 835,811 822,594 839,190 880,340 2020 880,340
ELEMENTARY (K ‐ 5) 390,326 363,265 374,471 395,730 406,600 2020 406,600
MIDDLE (6 ‐ 8) * 198,474 201,097 184,068 194,240 206,060 2003 207,987
HIGH (9 ‐ 12) * 240,891 271,449 264,055 249,220 267,680 2006 272,575
CHANGE:
2000 to 2005 to 2010 to 2015 to Peak to 2010 toSCHOOL 2005 2010 2015 2020 2020 # 2020TOTAL ENROLLMENT (K ‐ 12) 2,841 ‐13,217 16,596 41,150 ‐‐‐‐ 57,746
ELEMENTARY (K ‐ 5) ‐27,061 11,206 21,259 10,870 ‐‐‐‐ 32,129
MIDDLE (6 ‐ 8) * 2,623 ‐17,029 10,172 11,820 ‐1,927 21,992
HIGH (9 ‐ 12) * 30,558 ‐7,394 ‐14,835 18,460 ‐4,895 3,625
PERCENT CHANGE:
2000 to 2005 to 2010 to 2015 to Peak to 2010 toSCHOOL 2005 2010 2015 2020 2020 # 2020TOTAL ENROLLMENT (K ‐ 12) 0.3% ‐1.6% 2.0% 4.9% ‐‐‐‐ 7.0%
ELEMENTARY (K ‐ 5) ‐6.9% 3.1% 5.7% 2.7% ‐‐‐‐ 8.6%
MIDDLE (6 ‐ 8) * 1.3% ‐8.5% 5.5% 6.1% ‐0.9% 11.9%
HIGH (9 ‐ 12) * 12.7% ‐2.7% ‐5.6% 7.4% ‐1.8% 1.4%
* Middle and high school enrollment figures do NOT include secondary ungraded students before 2005. Secondary ungraded are included in all total enrollment figures.
# Public middle school enrollment peaked in 2003 at 207,987 students. Public high school students peaked in 2006 at 272,575 students.
Source: Maryland Department of Education (2000, 2005 and 2010). Projections prepared by the Maryland Department of Planning (2011‐2020), Projections and Data Analysis/State Data Center.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT FOR MARYLAND
Attachment - Question 14C
Elementary enrollment (grades K thru 5) is projected to grow every year over the next 10 years, and as a result will have the greatest numeric increase over the 10‐year period (32,100, or 8.6%) compared to middle and high school gains. Elementary enrollment has been expanding since 2007 and anticipated growth will be greatest in the earlier part of the projection period. (See Chart 3.)
Middle school enrollment (grades 6 thru 8) is also projected to grow substantially between 2010 and 2020 (22,000) and will have the largest percentage increase (11.9%) compared to elementary and high school percent gains. However, uninterrupted
2,676 2,6903,170
3,8004,260
5,810
8,580 8,350
9,790
8,620
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Chart 2. Projected Annual Change in Total Public School Enrollment in Maryland, 2011 ‐ 2020 *
*Grades K thru 12Source: Maryland Department of Planning
5,209
7,510
5,480
2,430
6301,320 1,320
840
2,180
5,210
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Chart 3. Projected Annual Change in Public Elementary School Enrollment in Maryland, 2011 ‐ 2020 *
*Grades K thru 5Source: Maryland Department of Planning
Attachment - Question 14C
enrollment increases for these grades do not begin until 2013 as the tail end of the baby boom echo finishes moving out of their middle school years. (See Chart 4.)
High school enrollment (grades 9 thru 12) is projected to be slightly more in 2020 compared to 2010 (3,600, or 1.4%). However, the anticipated pattern of change indicates substantial declines in the first half of the 10‐year projection period, followed by strong growth in the last few years (2016 thru 2020). (See Chart 5.)
482
‐340
3,3802,690
3,960
2,150
2,910
4,030
3,220
‐490
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Chart 4. Projected Annual Change in Public Middle School Enrollment in Maryland, 2011 ‐ 2020 *
*Grades 6 thru 8Source: Maryland Department of Planning
‐3,015
‐4,480
‐5,690
‐1,320‐330
2,340
4,3503,480
4,3903,900
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Chart 5. Projected Annual Change in Public High School Enrollment in Maryland, 2011 ‐ 2020 *
*Grades 9 thru 12Source: Maryland Department of Planning
Attachment - Question 14C
B. Jurisdiction Trends
Twenty of 24 jurisdictions in Maryland are expected to have more enrollment in 2020 compared to 2010. The largest numeric increases are anticipated for Montgomery and Baltimore counties (over 10,000 each), while the largest percentage increases are seen for Dorchester, St. Mary’s and Caroline counties, with gains exceeding 20 percent each. (See Table 2.)
Montgomery and Baltimore counties are expected to have the largest increases in elementary and middle school enrollment over the next 10 years. At the elementary level, Baltimore County’s enrollment is expected to expand by 5,300, larger than Montgomery County’s nearly 3,700 gain. At the middle school level, both jurisdictions are projected to expand by nearly 4,000 students, with Baltimore City expected to have the third largest numeric gain (2,900).
Cecil (27.0%) and St. Mary’s (24.0%) are anticipated to have the fastest rate of increase for elementary enrollment while Dorchester (45%) and Caroline (39.4% by 2019) are expected to have the largest percentage gain for middle school enrollment. All four jurisdictions had significant population gains, relative to past trends, earlier in the decade.
Montgomery County is expected to have the largest increase in high school enrollment over the next 10 years (nearly 2,900). St. Mary’s (16.7%), Queen Anne’s (14.1%) and Caroline (13.8%) counties are projected to grow the fastest. Unlike elementary and middle school enrollment, where virtually all jurisdictions are expected to have increases in enrollment, nine jurisdictions are expected to have lower high school enrollment totals in 2020 than in 2010. The largest reduction is expected for Prince George’s County (‐3,800, or ‐9.6%).
Attachment - Question 14C
Projected
Projected
PEAK
2000
‐20
10‐
2015
‐20
10‐
2000
‐20
10‐
2015
‐20
10‐
State/Re
gion
/Jurisdiction
2000
2010
2015
2020
YEAR*
2010
2015
2020
2020
2010
2015
2020
2020
MARY
LAND
832,97
082
2,59
483
9,19
088
0,34
020
20‐10,37
616
,596
41,150
57,746
‐1.2%
2.0%
4.9%
7.0%
BALTIM
ORE
REG
ION
383,99
936
7,95
037
6,25
039
1,60
020
20‐16,04
98,30
015
,350
23,650
‐4.2%
2.3%
4.1%
6.4%
Ann
e Arund
el Cou
t y73
,535
73,811
75,810
78,070
2020
276
1,99
92,26
04,25
90.4%
2.7%
3.0%
5.8%
Baltimore Co
unty
103,76
710
0,54
710
4,44
011
0,62
020
20‐3,220
3,89
36,18
010
,073
‐3.1%
3.9%
5.9%
10.0%
Carroll Cou
nty
27,335
27,063
25,940
26,230
‐‐‐‐
‐272
‐1,123
290
‐833
‐1.0%
‐4.1%
1.1%
‐3.1%
Harford Cou
nty
38,600
37,612
37,950
39,670
2020
‐988
338
1,72
02,05
8‐2.6%
0.9%
4.5%
5.5%
How
ard Co
unty
44,378
49,991
50,290
52,860
2020
5,61
329
92,57
02,86
912
.6%
0.6%
5.1%
5.7%
Baltimore City
96,384
78,926
81,820
84,150
2020
‐17,45
82,89
42,33
05,22
4‐18.1%
3.7%
2.8%
6.6%
WASH
INGTO
N SUBU
RBAN REG
ION
298,65
429
9,97
130
2,36
031
6,13
020
201,31
72,38
913
,770
16,159
0.4%
0.8%
4.6%
5.4%
Fred
erick Co
unt y
36,216
39,204
40,150
44,070
2020
2,98
894
63,92
04,86
68.3%
2.4%
9.8%
12.4%
Mon
tgom
ery Co
unty
131,66
514
0,52
014
4,55
015
1,04
020
208,85
54,03
06,49
010
,520
6.7%
2.9%
4.5%
7.5%
Prince Geo
rge's Co
unt y
130,77
312
0,24
711
7,66
012
1,02
0‐‐‐‐
‐10,52
6‐2,587
3,36
077
3‐8.0%
‐2.2%
2.9%
0.6%
SOUTH
ERN M
ARY
LAND REG
ION
53,207
58,866
60,640
66,140
2020
5,65
91,77
45,50
07,27
410
.6%
3.0%
9.1%
12.4%
Calvert C
ounty
15,847
16,410
15,650
16,190
‐‐‐‐
563
‐760
540
‐220
3.6%
‐4.6%
3.5%
‐1.3%
Charles Co
unt y
22,755
25,992
27,120
29,860
2020
3,23
71,12
82,74
03,86
814
.2%
4.3%
10.1%
14.9%
St. M
ary's Co
unty
14,605
16,464
17,870
20,090
2020
1,85
91,40
62,22
03,62
612
.7%
8.5%
12.4%
22.0%
WESTERN
MARY
LAND REG
ION
34,444
34,274
35,430
37,090
2020
‐170
1,15
61,66
02,81
6‐0.5%
3.4%
4.7%
8.2%
Allegany
Cou
nty
10,172
8,51
68,36
08,29
0‐‐‐‐
‐1,656
‐156
‐70
‐226
‐16.3%
‐1.8%
‐0.8%
‐2.7%
Garrett Cou
nty
4,81
34,09
03,79
03,70
0‐‐‐‐
‐723
‐300
‐90
‐390
‐15.0%
‐7.3%
‐2.4%
‐9.5%
Washington Co
unt y
19,459
21,668
23,280
25,100
2020
2,20
91,61
21,82
03,43
211
.4%
7.4%
7.8%
15.8%
UPP
ER EASTER
N SHORE
REG
ION
34,765
34,307
36,130
39,710
2020
‐458
1,82
33,58
05,40
3‐1.3%
5.3%
9.9%
15.7%
Caroline Co
unty
5,35
55,17
45,66
06,30
020
20‐181
486
640
1,12
6‐3.4%
9.4%
11.3%
21.8%
Cecil Cou
nty
15,428
15,347
15,970
17,920
2020
‐81
623
1,95
02,57
3‐0.5%
4.1%
12.2%
16.8%
Kent Cou
nty
2,67
32,03
52,08
02,20
020
20‐638
4512
016
5‐23.9%
2.2%
5.8%
8.1%
Que
en Ann
e's Co
unt y
6,93
87,49
38,03
08,77
020
2055
553
774
01,27
78.0%
7.2%
9.2%
17.0%
Talbot Cou
nty
4,37
14,25
84,39
04,52
020
19‐113
132
130
262
‐2.6%
3.1%
3.0%
6.2%
LOWER
EASTER
N SHORE
REG
ION
27,901
27,226
28,380
29,670
2020
‐675
1,15
41,29
02,44
4‐2.4%
4.2%
4.5%
9.0%
Dorchester Co
unt y
4,67
24,37
94,88
05,40
020
20‐293
501
520
1,02
1‐6.3%
11.4%
10.7%
23.3%
Somerset C
ounty
2,91
42,70
62,81
02,95
020
18‐208
104
140
244
‐7.1%
3.8%
5.0%
9.0%
Wicom
ico Co
unty
13,649
13,810
14,350
14,920
2020
161
540
570
1,11
01.2%
3.9%
4.0%
8.0%
Worcester Cou
nty
6,66
66,33
16,34
06,40
020
20‐335
960
69‐5.0%
0.1%
0.9%
1.1%
* Year in
which enrollm
ent is expe
cted
to peak du
ring
the 20
11‐202
0 projectio
n pe
riod
. " ‐‐‐‐" indicates no
projected
peak en
rollm
ent d
uring the 20
11‐202
0 projectio
n pe
riod
Source: Maryland Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
ction (200
0 and 20
10). Projections from
the Maryland Dep
artm
ent o
f Plann
ing, Projections and
Data Analysis/State Data Ce
nter.
PERC
ENT CH
ANGE
CHANGE
TABLE 2. SUMMARY
OF HISTO
RICA
L AND PRO
JECT
ED TOTA
L PU
BLIC SCH
OOL EN
ROLLMEN
T FO
R MARY
LAND'S JU
RISD
ICTIONS
Attachment - Question 14C
Long-Term Statewide Demographic Perspective
Over the last four decades Maryland’s public school enrollment for elementary, middle and high schools has experienced both significant expansions and contractions. These repeating patterns of growth and decline have been driven by the State’s demographic changes ‐ principally in the number of births and in the quantity and direction of net migration.
Chart 6 depicts Maryland’s historical and projected growth for total public school enrollment, from 1970 to 2020. Total public school enrollment in Maryland experienced its low point in 1985 (at 663,100) and peaked in 2003 at 847,700 students, a gain of 184,600, or 27.8 percent, over this 18‐year period. It is expected that the modest decline between 2003 and 2008 will be followed by increasingly strong growth from 2009 through 2020, leaving 2020 totals 32,600 (3.8%) above the last peak in 2003.
The gain between 1985 and 2003, the decline between 2003 and 2008, and the subsequent expected expansion which began in 2009, can largely be explained by what was happening and what is expected to happen to births and net migration in Maryland.
A. Births
Maryland’s births began to decline after the peak of the baby boom in 1964, and bottomed out in 1976. From 1978 to 1990, births steadily increased, with the 1990 peak births (80,199) even exceeding the highest total number of births in the peak baby boom year (79,003
650,000
700,000
750,000
800,000
850,000
900,000
950,000
1970 1977 1984 1991 1998 2005 2012 2019
Chart 6. Total Public School Enrollment in Maryland, Historical and Projected, 1970 ‐ 2020 *
Historical Projected* includes K thru 12
Source: Maryland State Department of Education (historical) and the Maryland Department of Planning (projections)
Attachment - Question 14C
in 1964). (See Chart 7.) The difference in the total number of births between these low and high points was rather dramatic, with the 1990 peak births of 80,199 just over 27,500 (or 52.3%) greater than the number of births which occurred in 1976. While births declined from the 1990 peak to a low of 70,151 in 1997, a drop of just over 10,000, since then births have generally risen before dropping in 2008 and 2009 – one of the effects of the Great Recession. Total births are expected to begin to increase again starting in 2012, and are expected to average just over 77,400 per year over the 2006 to 2015 period (corresponding with the enrollment years of 2011 to 2020).
More importantly than births in any one year, however, is the cumulative number of births over a 12‐year period that would constitute the potential enrollment pool for a specific school year. Cumulative births by year (those who are roughly between the ages of 5 and 17 for any given school year) reached a low point in 1989 at just under 754,200 and later peaked at 964,500 in 2002 (a difference of over 210,000). (See Chart 8.) Cumulative birth totals declined by nearly 38,250 between 2002 and 2010 but are projected to begin to grow again beginning in 2011. Steady increases are projected over the next 10 years, with the largest gains from 2015 to 2020. (See Chart 9.)1 These increases in cumulative births correspond directly with the accelerated enrollment gains beginning in 2015.
1 All cumulative birth totals have been adjusted to account for the changing kindergarten age eligibility requirements that were phased in between 2003 and 2006.
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Chart 7. Total Births in Maryland, Historical and Projected, 1940 ‐ 2015
Historical Projected
Source:Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (historical) and the Maryland Department of Planning (projections)
<‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Baby Boom‐‐‐‐‐‐>
Baby Bust
Baby Boom Echo
Peaked in 1990
Attachment - Question 14C
B. Migration
The number of births is only one aspect of the enrollment picture in that it represents “resident recorded births,” (i.e., births associated with females resident in Maryland.) Over the years, these potential students can be either reduced or increased in number depending on what happens with net migration, and, regarding public school enrollment, the percent that
‐40,000
‐30,000
‐20,000
‐10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
Chart 9. Annual Change in Cumulative Births by School Year in Maryland, Historical & Projected, 1971 ‐ 2020 *
Historical Projected
Source:Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (historical) and the Maryland Department of Planning, (projections)
* represents the annual change in the total number of births for those who would be between the ages of 5 and 17 for each school year
700,000
750,000
800,000
850,000
900,000
950,000
1,000,000
Chart 8. Cumulative Births by School Year in MarylandHistorical & Projected, 1970 ‐ 2020 *
Historical Projected
Source:Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (historical) and the Maryland Department of Planning, (projections)
Peaked in 1972Near peak in 2002
New peak begins in 2018
* represents the total number of births for those who would be between the ages of 5 and 17 for each school year. Beginning in 1998, includes births that would be kindergarten eligible
Attachment - Question 14C
attend private school. Net migration is the difference between the inflows and outflows of domestic migration plus the gains from foreign immigration.
Net migration, which could affect the number of school‐age kids directly or through the addition or subtraction of young adults that would eventually have school‐age kids, has fluctuated markedly over the last couple of decades. This fluctuation has typically been tied to the relative health of the State’s economy, but in more recent years, has also been significantly affected by the relative price of housing in Maryland compared to neighboring states.
B.1 Domestic Migration in the 1980s and 1990s
The role of economic migration was prominent when, following the two national recessions during the early 1980s, Maryland had one of the strongest economies in the country as measured by growth in jobs and personal income. This led to an acceleration in the population gains from net domestic migration as the decade progressed. As a result, Maryland had net domestic migration gains that averaged 8,344 annually over the course of the decade. (See Chart 10.)
In contrast to the boom times of the mid to late 1980s, the 1990/1991 recession hit Maryland particularly hard, resulting in two consecutive years of job losses, something that last happened following demobilization after World War II (but which occurred again in 2008 and 2009). As a result of the 1990/1991 economic downturn and subsequent slow recovery in the State (Maryland did not fully recover all of its lost jobs until 1995), much of the 1990s were characterized by net domestic out migration from Maryland. It was not until the last couple of
8,344
‐6,235
‐10,375
14,795
22,843
29,511
‐15,000
‐10,000
‐5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
1980s 1990s 2000s
Chart 10. Annualized Net Domestic Migration and Foreign Immigration into Maryland
Domestic Migration Foreign ImmigrationSource:Maryland Department of Planning. Foreign immigration data from the decennial Census (1980s and 1990s) and the 2009 American Community Survey for the 2000‐2009 period. Domestic migration is calculated as a residual for 1980s & 1990s.
Attachment - Question 14C
years of the decade that growth in the State’s economy accelerated and reduced the level of net domestic out migration from the State. Still, for the decade as a whole, Maryland averaged a net loss of 6,235 residents per year from domestic out migration, a swing of just over 14,500 residents annually from the gains of the 1980s. (See Chart 10.)
B.2 Post 2000 Domestic Migration
Maryland’s net domestic migration turned positive in the first three years of the 2000 to 2010 period, totaling just over 29,000. However, during the last six years, 2004‐2009, it is estimated that Maryland lost 125,000 residents through domestic out migration, with increasing losses in each subsequent year through 2007 before modifying slightly in 2008 and to a much greater extent in 2009. (See Table 3.) As a result, over the entire nine‐year period there was a net outflow from the State averaging 10,375 residents per year. (See Chart 10.)2
B.3 Migration and Economic Vitality
The initial strong net domestic migration gains over the first three years of the 2000 to 2010 decade, followed by six years of mostly larger declines, can in part be explained by the relative health of the State’s economy, plus an increasing desire on the part of residents to seek out desired housing type and quality at a more affordable price.
Following the short 2001 recession (March‐November 2001), the nation fell into a dismal period of economic stagnation that did not affect Maryland as severely as most other states. For instance, Maryland was one of only 13 states that did not have a loss in wage & salary jobs in any one year between 2000 and 2003, although it did experience some years of anemic job gains.3 The better economic performance by the State compared to the rest of the U.S. was a significant factor in the population gains from migration thru 2003. The net out migration for Maryland that began in 2004 coincided with the State losing much of its “competitive advantage” as measured by relative job growth.
For example, total payroll jobs in Maryland grew by only 8,600 in 2002, but was the fourth largest gain in the U.S. in that year, when 38 states experienced job losses. In 2006, Maryland gained 33,700 jobs, nearly four times as much as in 2002, but was ranked 23rd in absolute change in the U.S. (and only two states had jobs losses). In 2008, with the U.S. in the beginning of what would turn out to be the Great Recession, Maryland’s 8,300 job loss was ranked 33rd in the U.S. This relative weakening of Maryland’s economic vitality was one factor 2 Time period is from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009, a period of 9.25 years. 3 Maryland Department of Planning using Current Employment Series (CES) data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2011.
Attachment - Question 14C
in net domestic migration going from a net gain of 12,900 in 2002 to a net loss of 33,200 in 2007, a turnaround of 46,100. In 2009, the worst year of the current economic downturn, with every state experiencing job losses. Maryland’s 76,000 job loss was ranked 25th in the U.S. But with all states in dire straits, and with the added burden of a collapsed housing market, mobility around the country was severely curtailed. As a result, net out migration losses from Maryland in 2009 were estimated to have dropped to just under 11,200, about the same as in 2004.
B.4 Migration and Relative Housing Prices
While relative economic performance was a factor in domestic migration turning negative during the last five years, also becoming more prominent as a cause in the increased net out migration from Maryland in the latter part of the decade was the rise in housing prices relative to neighboring states. For example, during the 2000 to 2007 period there was an increase in the difference in the median value of owner occupied housing between bordering counties in Maryland and Pennsylvania, where the rise in housing values was two to three times as great on the Maryland side compared to the Pennsylvania side.4 As a result, the net outflow of residents from Maryland to Pennsylvania increased from 450 in 2000 to nearly 8,850 in 2006 and 7,400 in 2007.5
B.5 Foreign Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s
Despite experiencing net domestic out migration during the 1990s, Maryland did receive a significant number of foreign immigrants during this decade. Annual foreign immigration totaled just over 22,800 per year, an 8,000 (54.4%) increase above the average annual totals for the 1980s. (See Chart 10.) Despite the strong foreign immigration, however, total net migration for the decade (both domestic and foreign) was less than in the 1980s due to the net domestic out migration. Total migration gains (domestic and foreign) averaged 16,600 per year in the 1990s, about 6,500 below the annual gains during the 1980s. (See Chart 11.)
B.6 Post 2000 Foreign Immigration & Total Migration
Maryland’s foreign immigration totals continued to increase after 2000, with the estimated 265,600 new immigrants moving to Maryland between 2000 and 2009 greater than 4 Source: Census 2000 and the 2007 American Community Survey. Bordering counties in Pennsylvania (and their estimated change in housing value between 2000 and 2007: Lancaster (+$61,900), Franklin (+$74,300), York (+$61,800) and Adams (+$82,800). In Maryland, the bordering counties and their change in median housing value are Frederick (+$217,500), Carroll (+$208,100), Harford (+$162,000), Baltimore (+$147,300) and Washington ($128,500). 5 Source: Maryland Department of Planning, analysis of County‐to‐County IRS Migration data, 2000‐2007.
Attachment - Question 14C
in the previous two decades.6 (See Chart 10.) Therefore, despite the estimated strong net domestic out migration during the 2000 to 2009 period, the total annualized migration (both domestic and foreign combined) of 19,100 per year between 2000 and 2009 is above average annual gains in the 1990s (16,600) but below the 1980s (23,100). (See Chart 11.)
B.7 Foreign Immigration & Population Growth
With estimates of foreign immigration during the 2000 to 2009 period greater than in previous decades, and with net out migration also larger than in previous decades, foreign immigration became an even more important source of population growth in Maryland. For example, foreign immigration accounted for more than one‐half (55.7%) of the net gain in statewide population in the last decade, above the 44.3 percent share during the 1990s. For a few jurisdictions, however, this impact is even greater. For example, gains from foreign immigration actually exceeded the growth in net new residents in Montgomery County, made up more than nine out of ten net new residents for Prince George’s County and accounted for two‐thirds of the growth in Baltimore County. (See Chart 12.)
6 Source: The 2009 American Community Survey. The margin of error for the 2000‐2009 estimate is +/‐ 13,242. The estimated number of foreign born entering Maryland during the 1980s and 1990s come from the 1990 and 2000 decennial Censuses respectively.
23,139
16,608
19,136
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1980s 1990s 2000s
Chart 11. Annualized Total Net Migration for Maryland
Source: Maryland Department of Planning, calculated from decennial census data, Census Bureau population estimates, American Community Survey data, and birth and death data from the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
Attachment - Question 14C
The importance of foreign immigration to population growth in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties is the result of not only the high number of foreign immigrants but also the relatively large number of domestic out migrants from the two counties. For example, it is estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau that Montgomery County experienced net domestic out migration of 67,700 residents between 2000 and 2009 compared to an influx of 100,800 foreign immigrants. For Prince George’s County, the domestic out migration was over 77,200, compared to gains from foreign immigration of 57,900. (See Table 3 for net domestic migration estimates. The source of foreign immigration data is the 2009 American Community Survey.)
Foreign immigration has also been a key component of growth in Howard County, a fast growing outer suburban jurisdiction with gains from domestic migration over the first nine years of the decade (6,000), although there have been modest outflows in three of the years (2005‐2007). Estimated foreign immigration totals of 13,200 accounted for approximately one third (33.5%) of net new residents for Howard County (up from 18.8 percent during the 1990s).
For Baltimore City, which lost an estimated 77,500 residents due to domestic out‐migration during the 2000‐2009 period, it is estimated that 21,300 foreign immigrants settled in the City. Although far below the hot spots for foreign immigration in Maryland and other major cities elsewhere in the U.S., the foreign immigration totals represent an important source of overall population stabilization.
From a statewide perspective, the combination of net domestic out migration with gains from foreign immigration has been a significant factor in the increase in minority enrollment in
26.2%
31.1%
33.5%
55.7%
67.9%
93.5%
102.4%
Anne Arundel
Wicomico
Howard
MARYLAND
Baltimore Co.
Prince George's
Montgomery
Chart 12. Foreign Immigration as a Percent of Total Population Gain,2000 ‐ 2010
Source: Maryland Department of Planning, calculated using 2009 American Community Survey data.
Attachment - Question 14C
4/1/
2000
-7/
1/20
00-
7/1/
2001
-7/
1/20
02-
7/1/
2003
-7/
1/20
04-
7/1/
2005
-7/
1/20
06-
7/1/
2007
-7/
1/20
08-
4/1/
2000
-ST
ATE
/REG
ION
/JU
RIS
DIC
TIO
N7/
1/20
007/
1/20
017/
1/20
027/
1/20
037/
1/20
047/
1/20
057/
1/20
067/
1/20
077/
1/20
087/
1/20
097/
1/20
09M
AR
YLA
ND
‐197
8,89
712
,911
7,41
0‐11,15
3‐12,65
3‐27,37
7‐33,19
1‐29,45
6‐11,16
3‐95,97
2
BA
LTIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N‐628
‐618
3,03
62,46
3‐7,105
‐6,258
‐7,614
‐11,16
6‐10,24
9‐3,955
‐42,09
4 A
nne
Aru
ndel
Cou
nty
378
2,22
82,68
51,40
4‐1,089
‐1,674
‐4,082
‐1,916
‐536
2,22
7‐375
Bal
timor
e C
ount
y51
73,43
13,44
23,62
62,14
784
178
‐2,962
‐2,869
‐2,377
5,21
7 C
arro
ll C
ount
y48
02,19
43,46
22,94
52,21
11,15
01,09
4‐2
‐245
‐417
12,872
Har
ford
Cou
nty
390
1,53
43,20
92,87
71,84
22,23
21,12
0‐1,007
‐286
‐238
11,673
How
ard
Cou
nty
788
2,36
51,13
177
6‐631
‐473
‐86
372
531,73
36,02
8 B
altim
ore
City
‐3,181
‐12,37
0‐10,89
3‐9,165
‐11,58
5‐7,577
‐5,838
‐5,651
‐6,366
‐4,883
‐77,50
9
SUB
UR
BA
N W
ASH
ING
TON
REG
ION
‐1,244
1,26
7‐2,255
‐9,451
‐16,44
0‐16,77
0‐28,75
3‐27,53
6‐20,23
1‐7,353
‐128
,766
Fre
deric
k C
ount
y71
43,70
44,77
82,64
91,77
51,37
169
31,08
1‐251
‐338
16,176
Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
‐389
‐2,582
‐5,081
‐8,854
‐11,56
0‐10,63
5‐12,74
8‐11,53
2‐5,297
961
‐67,71
7 P
rince
Geo
rge'
s C
ount
y‐1,569
145
‐1,952
‐3,246
‐6,655
‐7,506
‐16,69
8‐17,08
5‐14,68
3‐7,976
‐77,22
5
SOU
THER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
878
4,52
76,74
17,70
34,93
83,94
32,31
11,17
714
339
32,571
Cal
vert
Cou
nty
444
1,68
32,55
52,52
01,53
81,01
739
213
330
211
10,523
Cha
rles
Cou
nty
342
2,49
72,40
12,83
92,04
41,63
71,07
319
0‐384
‐290
12,349
St.
Mar
y's
Cou
nty
9234
71,78
52,34
41,35
61,28
984
685
436
841
89,69
9
WES
TER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
‐107
171
1,12
51,46
22,34
11,71
81,39
91,52
79
‐157
9,48
8 A
llega
ny C
ount
y‐132
‐301
‐285
‐178
394
‐293
545
311
450
‐173
Gar
rett
Cou
nty
‐35
‐119
130
120
‐133
‐123
‐32
‐19
40‐87
‐258
Was
hing
ton
Cou
nty
6059
11,28
01,52
02,08
02,13
41,42
61,09
3‐145
‐120
9,91
9
UPP
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N69
72,23
93,12
53,58
23,27
73,15
53,31
11,38
61,06
049
122
,323
Car
olin
e C
ount
y34
‐18
147
336
‐10
580
591
335
71‐186
1,88
0 C
ecil
Cou
nty
358
1,41
71,37
41,81
01,91
11,50
11,39
621
255
290
10,324
Ken
t Cou
nty
7417
221
813
814
321
114
410
142
6‐23
1,60
4 Q
ueen
Ann
e's
Cou
nty
159
385
1,09
11,01
760
033
972
565
544
826
85,68
7 T
albo
t Cou
nty
7228
329
528
163
352
445
583
6014
22,82
8
LOW
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N20
71,31
11,13
91,65
11,83
61,55
91,96
91,42
1‐59
‐528
10,506
Dor
ches
ter C
ount
y‐66
68‐28
141
379
374
201
412
172
‐39
1,61
4 S
omer
set C
ount
y‐23
420
222
5119
8‐91
242
362
‐163
‐226
992
Wic
omic
o C
ount
y59
‐227
093
394
31,33
91,23
245
4‐24
‐257
4,94
7 W
orce
ster
Cou
nty
237
825
675
526
316
‐63
294
193
‐44
‐62,95
3*
Net
dom
estic
mig
ratio
n w
ill a
lso
incl
ude
the
net c
hang
e in
gro
up q
uarte
rs p
opul
atio
nS
ourc
e: P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion,
U.S
. Cen
sus
Bur
eau,
rele
ase
date
Mar
ch 2
3, 2
010
Pre
pare
d by
the
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of P
lann
ing,
Pro
ject
ions
and
Dat
a A
naly
sis/
Sta
te D
ata
Cen
ter,
Mar
ch 2
010.
TAB
LE 3
- N
ET D
OM
ESTI
C M
IGR
ATI
ON
EST
IMA
TES
FOR
MA
RYL
AN
D'S
JU
RIS
DIC
TIO
NS,
APR
IL 1
, 200
0 TO
JU
LY 1
, 200
9 *
Attachment - Question 14C
Maryland. Overall, between 2000 and 2010 the largest gains in both absolute and percentage terms in public school enrollment were in Hispanic and Asian students, while non‐Hispanic white enrollment declined. (See Charts 13 and 14.) As a result of this growth pattern, non‐Hispanic white enrollment went from 53.6 percent of total enrollment in 2000 to 43.5 percent in 2010.7
7 Maryland first became a “majority minority” public school system in 2004 when non‐Hispanic whites were 49.8 percent of statewide enrollment.
‐88,551
‐15,296
‐233
11,183
53,362
Non‐Hispanic White
Black/African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Chart 13. Change in Total Public School Enrollment in Maryland by Race & Hispanic Origin, 2000‐2010 *
Source: Maryland Department of Planning, from Maryland State Department of Education data.* Beginningwith 2010, enrollment data by race now includes those students of two or more races. These totals cannot be compared to 2000 data.
19.8%
8.0%
5.0%
30.7%
135.1%
NonHispanic White
Black/African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Chart 14. Percent Change in Total Public School Enrollment in Maryland by Race & Hispanic Origin, 20002010 *
*Beginning with 2010, enrollment data by race now includes those students of two or more races. These totals cannot be compared to 2000 data.Source: Maryland Department of Planning, from Maryland State Department of Education data.
Attachment - Question 14C
B8. Intra‐State Migration
While foreign immigration has been an important source of population growth for the older suburban counties like Montgomery, Prince George’s and Baltimore since the 1990s, intra‐state migration, the movement of people from one Maryland county to another, has been a key element in the growth of many of the outer suburban counties. The patterns of these intra‐state migration flows have typically been from the inner suburban counties to contiguous outer suburban counties. For example, out migration from Montgomery and Prince George’s counties increased the total population and school enrollments in many outer suburban jurisdictions, including, Calvert, Charles, Frederick and Howard counties. During the middle part of the 2000 to 2010 period there was evidence of a third wave of suburbanization into exurban counties. In this case, increasing gains from intra‐state migration were realized by Washington County (primarily from Frederick and Montgomery counties) and Cecil County (primarily from Harford County), although these movements have substantially slowed with the collapse of the housing bubble in 2008/2009.
B9. Public/Private Enrollment Share Besides the number of births, domestic migration and foreign immigration flows,
another important factor in determining public school enrollment is the percentage of all students which attend public versus private schools. Unfortunately, data on K thru 12 private school enrollment for the last three school years (2008, 2009 & 2010) are not directly comparable to prior years and thus it is not possible to establish a historical trend up to the current school year. This is because the Maryland State Department of Education, which generates the non‐public school enrollment data, switched to an online survey of private schools (from a mail‐out/mail‐back survey) which resulted in a much lower response rate than in prior years.
What the data does show for 2008, however, is that public school K‐12 enrollment comprised 88.7 percent of all enrollment. This share represents a jump of 2.5 percentage points from the 2007 survey results, and would be the highest on record if the 2008 data were compatible with percentages from prior years. Prior to 2008, the highest public share on record over the last couple of decades was 87.2 percent in 1991. Data for 2009 and 2010 indicates a very small decline from the 2008 figure, with an estimated 88.5 percent of total enrollment attending public schools in 2009 and 88.2 percent in 2010.8
8 Due to refinements in collecting and editing the non‐public school enrollment data, the Maryland State Department of Education feels that the 2009 data is more reliable than the 2008 data and that 2009 and 2010 data may be comparable.
Attachment - Question 14C
Despite the incompatibility of historical public/private shares with data over the last two years, it is logical to assume that the public school enrollment share has increased over the last several years compared to earlier in the decade as a result of the severe economic consequences of the Great Recession. It may well be the case that a small percentage shift from private to public schools was behind the small growth in total public school enrollment in 2009 (just under 2,700) for the first time in six years.9
9 For example, an increase of just 0.5 percent from private to public enrollment could mean an increase of around 4,700 public school students.
Attachment - Question 14C
Trends and Projections in Public School Enrollment by Type The net effect of smaller population increases due to migration trends and a decline in
births from their peak in 1990 is reflected in the slowdown in total statewide public school enrollment growth from 1994 to 2003 and the subsequent declines between 2004 and 2008. The statewide and jurisdiction population trends and projections form the basis for the projected school enrollment, with modest growth in total enrollment anticipated to continue over the next few years before enrollment growth picks up more robustly in 2014.
The following describes the trends and projections of public school enrollment by school type.
A. Total Public School Enrollment
Total public school enrollment over the next three years is expected to increase modestly as the 12‐year accumulated birth totals are anticipated to begin to grow again after nine straight years of decline. The combined enrollment gain of around 8,500 students over the three‐year period will be aided by the continued lower levels of private enrollment share of total enrollment as the State, along with the rest of the U.S., works itself out of the effects of the Great Recession, characterized by higher unemployment, stagnant wages and increased housing foreclosures.
Twelve‐year cumulative birth totals are projected to continue to grow throughout the projection period, but begin to have accelerated gains beginning in 2016. This will lead to the larger public school enrollment gains beginning in that year. In addition, it is also anticipated that Maryland will more than likely return to having one of the stronger economies in the nation, due in part to the employment gains from Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, which should be completed by 2011. However, if federal personnel and procurement budgets are severely cut over the next decade or so, the State could be disproportionately affected given the number of federal employees living in Maryland and the very high federal per capita expenditures captured by Maryland firms. Although these last two factors could influence potential population gains through domestic migration flows, right now total public school enrollment is expected to rise by 57,700 (7.0%) between 2010 and 2020, with just over seventy percent of this gain coming in the last five years. (See Chart 2 and Table 1 in the Executive Summary.)
B. Public Elementary School Enrollment (grades K thru 5)
Public elementary school enrollment (grades K‐5) dropped by nearly 163,300 students (‐36.9%) between 1972 and 1983, the low point over the past several decades. (See Chart 15.) This decline was caused by the passing of the last of the “baby boom” generation (those born
Attachment - Question 14C
between 1946 and 1964) through their elementary school years, which were then followed by the “baby bust” generation characterized by a period of declining births. The baby bust generation was followed, in turn, by the larger baby “boomlet” cohorts (sometimes called “Generation Y,” or the baby‐boom echo) resulting in an 118,300 (42.4%) increase in elementary enrollment from 1983 to 1997. Lower numbers of births from the peak in 1990 resulted in a decline in elementary enrollment from 1997 thru 2006 of nearly 39,300 (‐9.9%) yielding a total enrollment of just under 358,000. Elementary enrollment began to grow again in 2007, with increasingly larger gains in 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Elementary enrollment is projected to continue to increase in each of the next 10 years. (See Chart 3 in the Executive Summary.) The most significant reason behind this sustained increase is the generally high levels of births, averaging 77,400 per year, which have already occurred or are projected to occur from 2006 to 2015. In addition to high levels of births, another factor in the elementary increase is the implementation of full day kindergarten statewide by 2007, making it more likely for parents to choose public school kindergarten. As a result, elementary enrollment in 2020 is projected to be around 406,600, or 32,100 (8.6%) above 2010. The 2020 totals are also expected to be 9,400 (2.4%) above the last elementary enrollment peak in 1997 of 397,239.
C. Public Middle School Enrollment (grades 6 thru 8)
Public middle school enrollment (grades 6‐8) changes follow very closely the elementary school enrollment patterns with only the age of the students accounting for the different trough and peak years. (See Chart 16.) From 1975 to its low point in 1986, public middle school
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
Chart 15. Public Elementary School Enrollment in Maryland, Historical and Projected, 1972 ‐ 2020 *
Historical Projected* includes grades K thru 5Source:Maryland State Department of Education (historical) and the Maryland Department of Planning, (projections)
Recent peak in 1997
Attachment - Question 14C
enrollment fell by nearly 72,000 students (‐33.7%) driven by the same demographic trends as described for elementary school students. Middle school enrollment grew steadily between 1986 and 2003, peaking at just under 208,000 students in 2003, for a gain of 66,800 students, or 47.3 percent. Statewide, middle school enrollment declined by 23,900 (‐11.5%) between 2003 and 2010, and is expected to have a small gain and loss over the next two years before the increased enrollments in elementary school, which started in 2007, begin to make their presence felt at the middle school level. (See Chart 4 in the Executive Summary.) Middle school enrollment is projected to increase by 21,850 students (11.9%) over the last eight years of the projection period, leaving 2020 totals about 22,000 (11.9%) above actual 2010 enrollment.
D. Public High School Enrollment (grades 9 thru 12)
Public high school enrollment (grades 9‐12) is anticipated to follow the same peak‐to‐trough‐to‐peak cycle as elementary and middle school enrollment but “shifted to the right.” (See Chart 17.) Decades ago, public high school enrollment peaked in 1978 at 266,850 students, and then declined by nearly 85,000 students (‐31.8%) through 1990. Steady growth followed after 1990, reaching a total of just below 272,600 in 2006, a nearly 90,700 (49.8%) gain from the low point in 1990. Public high school enrollment declined in 2007 for the first time since 1990 and continued to drop in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The decline in 2010 (‐2,573, or ‐1.0%) was about equal to the combined loss in the previous two years. Some of this larger decline may be due to the slightly smaller percent of total high school students enrolled in public schools (87.8% in 2010 vs. 88.2% in 2009).
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
220,000
Chart 16. Public Middle School Enrollment in Maryland, Historical and Projected, 1972 ‐ 2020 *
Historical Projected* includes grades 6 thru 8Source:Maryland State Department of Education (historical) and the Maryland Department of Planning, (projections)
Peaked in 2003
Attachment - Question 14C
Public high school enrollment is expected to continue to decline through 2015 before beginning to grow again in the last five years of the projection period. (See Chart 5 in the Executive Summary.) While growth in the last five years are expected to be significant (18,500, or 7.4%), total public high school enrollment in 2020 is expected to be only 3,600 (1.4%) above 2010 levels.
180,000
200,000
220,000
240,000
260,000
280,000
Chart 17. Public High School Enrollment in Maryland, Historical and Projected, 1972 ‐ 2020 *
Historical Projected* includes grades 9 thru 12Source:Maryland State Department of Education (historical) and the Maryland Department of Planning, (projections)
Peaked in 2006
New trough in 2015
Trough in 1990
Attachment - Question 14C
Jurisdiction Projections Over The Next 10 Years
A. Total Enrollment
With statewide enrollment projected to grow each year over the next 10 years, all but four jurisdictions –Calvert, Allegany, Garrett and Carroll – are projected to have their highest enrollment totals over the next ten years in 2020. (See Tables 4, 5 and 6.) Just over two‐thirds (67.2%) of the total statewide gain between 2010 and 2020 is likely to occur in a handful of jurisdictions: Montgomery (10,500), Baltimore County (10,100), Baltimore City (5,200), Frederick (4,900), Anne Arundel (4,300) and Charles (3,900). (See Chart 18.)
The source of this enrollment growth will vary by jurisdiction. For example, growth in Montgomery County’s schools is being fueled mostly through gains from foreign immigration over the years as the County captures nearly four out of 10 (38.0%) of new immigrants to Maryland during the 2000 to 2009 period.10 At the same time, migration of residents out of Montgomery County is what is driving school enrollment increases in Frederick County, and to a lesser extent Washington County. Washington County enrollment growth (the seventh largest gain in the State), is being impacted even more greatly by migration gains from Frederick County as housing affordability issues at the midpoint of the decade caused residents to seek homes in Washington County that were less costly.
10 Source: 2009 American Community Survey. The margin of error around Montgomery County’s share of statewide foreign born entering Maryland during the 2000 to 2009 period is +/- 2.2 percent.
‐833‐390‐226‐220
69165244262
7731,0211,1101,1261,277
2,0582,5732,869
3,4323,6263,8684,259
4,8665,224
10,07310,520
CarrollGarrett
AlleganyCalvert
WorcesterKent
SomersetTalbot
Prince George's DorchesterWicomicoCaroline
Queen Anne'sHarford
CecilHoward
WashingtonSt. Mary'sCharles
Anne ArundelFrederick
Baltimore CityBaltimore CoMontgomery
Chart 18. Public School Enrollment Change by Jurisdiction, 2010 ‐ 2020
Source:Maryland Department of Planning
Attachment - Question 14C
STA
TE/R
EGIO
N/J
UR
ISD
ICTI
ON
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
MA
RYL
AN
D82
2,59
482
5,27
082
7,96
083
1,13
083
4,93
083
9,19
084
5,00
085
3,58
086
1,93
087
1,72
0
BA
LTIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N36
7,95
036
9,68
037
0,93
037
2,16
037
4,27
037
6,25
037
8,16
038
1,30
038
4,54
038
8,32
0A
nne
Aru
ndel
Cou
nty
73,811
74,320
74,670
74,980
75,400
75,810
76,210
76,720
77,170
77,640
Bal
timor
e C
ount
y10
0,54
710
1,15
010
1,77
010
2,51
010
3,44
010
4,44
010
5,46
010
6,62
010
8,02
010
9,43
0C
arro
ll C
ount
y27
,063
26,870
26,610
26,450
26,170
25,940
25,830
25,870
25,920
26,070
Har
ford
Cou
nty
37,612
37,790
37,880
37,940
38,010
37,950
37,960
38,280
38,580
39,190
How
ard
Cou
nty
49,991
50,160
50,120
50,030
50,030
50,290
50,520
51,150
51,650
52,260
Bal
timor
e C
ity78
,926
79,390
79,880
80,250
81,220
81,820
82,180
82,660
83,200
83,730
SUB
UR
BA
N W
ASH
ING
TON
REG
ION
299,97
130
0,31
030
0,80
030
0,98
030
1,13
030
2,36
030
4,39
030
7,34
031
0,00
031
3,25
0Fr
eder
ick
Cou
nty
39,204
39,300
39,610
39,770
39,870
40,150
40,480
41,160
41,880
42,900
Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
140,52
014
1,45
014
2,63
014
3,00
014
3,60
014
4,55
014
5,76
014
7,22
014
8,46
014
9,86
0P
rince
Geo
rge'
s C
ount
y12
0,24
711
9,56
011
8,56
011
8,21
011
7,66
011
7,66
011
8,15
011
8,96
011
9,66
012
0,49
0
SOU
THER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
58,866
59,160
59,470
59,880
60,450
60,640
61,260
62,320
63,420
64,830
Cal
vert
Cou
nty
16,410
16,250
16,070
15,960
15,830
15,650
15,590
15,650
15,780
15,980
Cha
rles
Cou
nty
25,992
26,200
26,450
26,710
26,970
27,120
27,400
27,970
28,460
29,150
St.
Mar
y's
Cou
nty
16,464
16,710
16,950
17,210
17,650
17,870
18,270
18,700
19,180
19,700
WES
TER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
34,274
34,330
34,660
34,990
35,160
35,430
35,710
36,070
36,340
36,730
Alle
gany
Cou
nty
8,51
68,42
08,38
08,36
08,38
08,36
08,33
08,36
08,32
08,31
0G
arre
tt C
ount
y4,09
03,97
03,93
03,82
03,78
03,79
03,76
03,74
03,70
03,70
0W
ashi
ngto
n C
ount
y21
,668
21,940
22,350
22,810
23,000
23,280
23,620
23,970
24,320
24,720
UPP
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N34
,307
34,560
34,770
35,310
35,770
36,130
36,800
37,520
38,280
39,120
Car
olin
e C
ount
y5,17
45,23
05,28
05,43
05,56
05,66
05,79
05,95
06,09
06,19
0C
ecil
Cou
nty
15,347
15,440
15,510
15,650
15,820
15,970
16,240
16,590
17,020
17,490
Ken
t Cou
nty
2,03
52,07
02,03
02,07
02,10
02,08
02,13
02,17
02,15
02,19
0Q
ueen
Ann
e's
Cou
nty
7,49
37,56
07,66
07,83
07,94
08,03
08,21
08,34
08,52
08,71
0Ta
lbot
Cou
nty
4,25
84,26
04,29
04,33
04,35
04,39
04,43
04,47
04,50
04,54
0
LOW
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N27
,226
27,230
27,330
27,810
28,150
28,380
28,680
29,030
29,350
29,470
Dor
ches
ter C
ount
y4,37
94,45
04,52
04,68
04,81
04,88
05,00
05,13
05,24
05,30
0S
omer
set C
ount
y2,70
62,70
02,68
02,73
02,74
02,81
02,89
02,91
02,95
02,94
0W
icom
ico
Cou
nty
13,810
13,780
13,840
14,040
14,220
14,350
14,480
14,660
14,790
14,890
Wor
cest
er C
ount
y6,33
16,30
06,29
06,36
06,38
06,34
06,31
06,33
06,37
06,34
0*
Enr
ollm
ent n
umbe
rs in
bol
d in
dica
te y
ears
in w
hich
enr
ollm
ent w
ill p
eak.
Due
to ro
undi
ng, p
roje
cted
enr
ollm
ents
may
not
add
up
exac
tly to
Sta
te to
tals
.
Sou
rce:
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion,
"Sta
tistic
s on
Enr
ollm
ent a
nd N
umbe
r of S
choo
ls P
ublic
and
Non
-Pub
lic, 2
010.
"P
repa
red
by th
e M
aryl
and
Dep
artm
ent o
f Pla
nnin
g, P
roje
ctio
ns a
nd D
ata
Ana
lysi
s/S
tate
Dat
a C
ente
r, 20
11 to
202
0.
TAB
LE 4
. TO
TAL
PUB
LIC
SC
HO
OL
ENR
OLL
MEN
T (G
RA
DES
K-1
2), B
Y JU
RIS
DIC
TIO
N, A
CTU
AL
(201
0) &
PR
OJE
CTE
D (2
011-
2020
) *Attachment - Question 14C
TAB
LE 5
. C
UM
ULA
TIVE
CH
AN
GE
IN T
OTA
L PU
BLI
C S
CH
OO
L EN
RO
LLM
ENT
(GR
AD
ES K
-12)
FR
OM
AC
TUA
L 20
10, B
Y JU
RIS
DIC
TIO
N
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
STA
TE/R
EGIO
N/J
UR
ISD
ICTI
ON
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MA
RYL
AN
D2,67
65,36
68,53
612
,336
16,596
22,406
30,986
39,336
49,126
57,746
BA
LTIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N1,73
02,98
04,21
06,32
08,30
010
,210
13,350
16,590
20,370
23,650
Ann
e A
rund
el C
ount
y50
985
91,16
91,58
91,99
92,39
92,90
93,35
93,82
94,25
9B
altim
ore
Cou
nty
603
1,22
31,96
32,89
33,89
34,91
36,07
37,47
38,88
310
,073
Car
roll
Cou
nty
‐193
‐453
‐613
‐893
‐1,123
‐1,233
‐1,193
‐1,143
‐993
‐833
Har
ford
Cou
nty
178
268
328
398
338
348
668
968
1,57
82,05
8H
owar
d C
ount
y16
912
939
3929
952
91,15
91,65
92,26
92,86
9B
altim
ore
City
464
954
1,32
42,29
42,89
43,25
43,73
44,27
44,80
45,22
4
SUB
UR
BA
N W
ASH
ING
TON
REG
ION
339
829
1,00
91,15
92,38
94,41
97,36
910
,029
13,279
16,159
Fred
eric
k C
ount
y96
406
566
666
946
1,27
61,95
62,67
63,69
64,86
6M
ontg
omer
y C
ount
y93
02,11
02,48
03,08
04,03
05,24
06,70
07,94
09,34
010
,520
Prin
ce G
eorg
e's
Cou
nty
‐687
‐1,687
‐2,037
‐2,587
‐2,587
‐2,097
‐1,287
‐587
243
773
SOU
THER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
294
604
1,01
41,58
41,77
42,39
43,45
44,55
45,96
47,27
4C
alve
rt C
ount
y‐160
‐340
‐450
‐580
‐760
‐820
‐760
‐630
‐430
‐220
Cha
rles
Cou
nty
208
458
718
978
1,12
81,40
81,97
82,46
83,15
83,86
8S
t. M
ary'
s C
ount
y24
648
674
61,18
61,40
61,80
62,23
62,71
63,23
63,62
6
WES
TER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
5638
671
688
61,15
61,43
61,79
62,06
62,45
62,81
6A
llega
ny C
ount
y‐96
‐136
‐156
‐136
‐156
‐186
‐156
‐196
‐206
‐226
Gar
rett
Cou
nty
‐120
‐160
‐270
‐310
‐300
‐330
‐350
‐390
‐390
‐390
Was
hing
ton
Cou
nty
272
682
1,14
21,33
21,61
21,95
22,30
22,65
23,05
23,43
2
UPP
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N25
346
31,00
31,46
31,82
32,49
33,21
33,97
34,81
35,40
3C
arol
ine
Cou
nty
5610
625
638
648
661
677
691
61,01
61,12
6C
ecil
Cou
nty
9316
330
347
362
389
31,24
31,67
32,14
32,57
3K
ent C
ount
y35
‐535
6545
9513
511
515
516
5Q
ueen
Ann
e's
Cou
nty
6716
733
744
753
771
784
71,02
71,21
71,27
7Ta
lbot
Cou
nty
232
7292
132
172
212
242
282
262
LOW
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N4
104
584
924
1,15
41,45
41,80
42,12
42,24
42,44
4D
orch
este
r Cou
nty
7114
130
143
150
162
175
186
192
11,02
1S
omer
set C
ount
y‐6
‐26
2434
104
184
204
244
234
244
Wic
omic
o C
ount
y‐30
3023
041
054
067
085
098
01,08
01,11
0W
orce
ster
Cou
nty
‐31
‐41
2949
9‐21
‐139
969
* E
nrol
lmen
t num
bers
in b
old
indi
cate
yea
rs in
whi
ch e
nrol
lmen
t will
pea
k. D
ue to
roun
ding
, pro
ject
ed e
nrol
lmen
ts m
ay n
ot a
dd u
p ex
actly
to S
tate
tota
ls.
Sou
rce:
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion,
"Sta
tistic
s on
Enr
ollm
ent a
nd N
umbe
r of S
choo
ls P
ublic
and
Non
-Pub
lic, 2
010.
"
Attachment - Question 14C
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
STA
TE/R
EGIO
N/J
UR
ISD
ICTI
ON
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MA
RYL
AN
D0.3%
0.7%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.7%
3.8%
4.8%
6.0%
7.0%
BA
LTIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N0.5%
0.8%
1.1%
1.7%
2.3%
2.8%
3.6%
4.5%
5.5%
6.4%
Ann
e A
rund
el C
ount
y0.7%
1.2%
1.6%
2.2%
2.7%
3.3%
3.9%
4.6%
5.2%
5.8%
Bal
timor
e C
ount
y0.6%
1.2%
2.0%
2.9%
3.9%
4.9%
6.0%
7.4%
8.8%
10.0%
Car
roll
Cou
nty
‐0.7%
‐1.7%
‐2.3%
‐3.3%
‐4.1%
‐4.6%
‐4.4%
‐4.2%
‐3.7%
‐3.1%
Har
ford
Cou
nty
0.5%
0.7%
0.9%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
1.8%
2.6%
4.2%
5.5%
How
ard
Cou
nty
0.3%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.6%
1.1%
2.3%
3.3%
4.5%
5.7%
Bal
timor
e C
ity0.6%
1.2%
1.7%
2.9%
3.7%
4.1%
4.7%
5.4%
6.1%
6.6%
SUB
UR
BA
N W
ASH
ING
TON
REG
ION
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.8%
1.5%
2.5%
3.3%
4.4%
5.4%
Fred
eric
k C
ount
y0.2%
1.0%
1.4%
1.7%
2.4%
3.3%
5.0%
6.8%
9.4%
12.4%
Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
0.7%
1.5%
1.8%
2.2%
2.9%
3.7%
4.8%
5.7%
6.6%
7.5%
Prin
ce G
eorg
e's
Cou
nty
‐0.6%
‐1.4%
‐1.7%
‐2.2%
‐2.2%
‐1.7%
‐1.1%
‐0.5%
0.2%
0.6%
SOU
THER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
0.5%
1.0%
1.7%
2.7%
3.0%
4.1%
5.9%
7.7%
10.1%
12.4%
Cal
vert
Cou
nty
‐1.0%
‐2.1%
‐2.7%
‐3.5%
‐4.6%
‐5.0%
‐4.6%
‐3.8%
‐2.6%
‐1.3%
Cha
rles
Cou
nty
0.8%
1.8%
2.8%
3.8%
4.3%
5.4%
7.6%
9.5%
12.1%
14.9%
St.
Mar
y's
Cou
nty
1.5%
3.0%
4.5%
7.2%
8.5%
11.0%
13.6%
16.5%
19.7%
22.0%
WES
TER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
0.2%
1.1%
2.1%
2.6%
3.4%
4.2%
5.2%
6.0%
7.2%
8.2%
Alle
gany
Cou
nty
‐1.1%
‐1.6%
‐1.8%
‐1.6%
‐1.8%
‐2.2%
‐1.8%
‐2.3%
‐2.4%
‐2.7%
Gar
rett
Cou
nty
‐2.9%
‐3.9%
‐6.6%
‐7.6%
‐7.3%
‐8.1%
‐8.6%
‐9.5%
‐9.5%
‐9.5%
Was
hing
ton
Cou
nty
1.3%
3.1%
5.3%
6.1%
7.4%
9.0%
10.6%
12.2%
14.1%
15.8%
UPP
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N0.7%
1.3%
2.9%
4.3%
5.3%
7.3%
9.4%
11.6%
14.0%
15.7%
Car
olin
e C
ount
y1.1%
2.0%
4.9%
7.5%
9.4%
11.9%
15.0%
17.7%
19.6%
21.8%
Cec
il C
ount
y0.6%
1.1%
2.0%
3.1%
4.1%
5.8%
8.1%
10.9%
14.0%
16.8%
Ken
t Cou
nty
1.7%
‐0.2%
1.7%
3.2%
2.2%
4.7%
6.6%
5.7%
7.6%
8.1%
Que
en A
nne'
s C
ount
y0.9%
2.2%
4.5%
6.0%
7.2%
9.6%
11.3%
13.7%
16.2%
17.0%
Talb
ot C
ount
y0.0%
0.8%
1.7%
2.2%
3.1%
4.0%
5.0%
5.7%
6.6%
6.2%
LOW
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N0.0%
0.4%
2.1%
3.4%
4.2%
5.3%
6.6%
7.8%
8.2%
9.0%
Dor
ches
ter C
ount
y1.6%
3.2%
6.9%
9.8%
11.4%
14.2%
17.2%
19.7%
21.0%
23.3%
Som
erse
t Cou
nty
‐0.2%
‐1.0%
0.9%
1.3%
3.8%
6.8%
7.5%
9.0%
8.6%
9.0%
Wic
omic
o C
ount
y‐0.2%
0.2%
1.7%
3.0%
3.9%
4.9%
6.2%
7.1%
7.8%
8.0%
Wor
cest
er C
ount
y‐0.5%
‐0.6%
0.5%
0.8%
0.1%
‐0.3%
0.0%
0.6%
0.1%
1.1%
* E
nrol
lmen
t num
bers
in b
old
indi
cate
yea
rs in
whi
ch e
nrol
lmen
t will
pea
k.
Sou
rce:
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion,
"Sta
tistic
s on
Enr
ollm
ent a
nd N
umbe
r of S
choo
ls P
ublic
and
Non
-Pub
lic, 2
010.
"P
repa
red
by th
e M
aryl
and
Dep
artm
ent o
f Pla
nnin
g, P
roje
ctio
ns a
nd D
ata
Ana
lysi
s/S
tate
Dat
a C
ente
r, 2
011
to 2
020.
TAB
LE 6
. C
UM
ULA
TIVE
PER
CEN
T C
HA
NG
E IN
TO
TAL
PUB
LIC
SC
HO
OL
ENR
OLL
MEN
T (G
RA
DES
K-1
2) F
RO
M A
CTU
AL
2010
, BY
JUR
ISD
ICTI
ON
Attachment - Question 14C
Out migrants from Prince George’s County are a chief source of enrollment growth for Charles County, while out migration from Baltimore City, as well as gains from foreign immigration, impact enrollment growth in Baltimore County. Anne Arundel County, which has one of the stronger economies in the State due to it being a major recipient of BRAC jobs in addition to other planned expansions at Ft. Meade, has been attracting migrants from both within and outside of Maryland.
The projection of growth for Baltimore City (with the third largest gain over the 10‐year
period), continues recent trends in which the City experienced relatively modest enrollment gains in two out of the last three years. Prior to these recent gains, the City experienced 13 straight years of declines, losing nearly 30,700 students (‐28.3%) between 1994 and 2007. The projected reversal of the City’s historical enrollment decline is attributable in part to more school choice options for City residents due to the increase in the number of charter schools; improved school quality as measured by standardized test scores; and, better high school retention rates. In addition, the closing of 13 parochial schools in Baltimore City and Baltimore County beginning in the 2010 school year will leave those who desire such an education with fewer options.
Two of the four jurisdictions with the greatest percentage increases in total enrollment
are rural counties – Dorchester (23.3%) and Caroline (21.8%). (See Chart 19 and Table 6.) Rounding out the top five are St. Mary’s (22.0%) in Southern Maryland and Queen Anne’s County (17.0%) and Cecil County (16.8%) on the Eastern Shore. All five counties had greater overall population growth in the 2000 to 2010 period compared to the 1990s, in contrast to the State as a whole, with much of this growth occurring from in migration of residents from other Maryland counties.
‐9.5%‐3.1%‐2.7%
‐1.3%0.6%1.1%
5.5%5.7%5.8%6.2%6.6%7.5%8.0%8.1%9.0%10.0%
12.4%14.9%15.8%16.8%17.0%
21.8%22.0%
23.3%
GarrettCarroll
AlleganyCalvert
Prince George's Worcester
HarfordHoward
Anne ArundelTalbot
Baltimore CityMontgomery
WicomicoKent
SomersetBaltimore Co
FrederickCharles
WashingtonCecil
Queen Anne'sCaroline
St. Mary'sDorchester
Chart 19. Public School Enrollment Percent Changeby Jurisdiction, 2010 ‐ 2020
Source: Maryland Department of Planning
Attachment - Question 14C
Of the four jurisdictions which are expected to have lower enrollment totals in 2020 than in 2010, the largest decline is anticipated for Carroll County (‐800, or ‐3.1%). However, during the course of the 10‐year projection period, enrollment will actually be at its lowest in 2016, about 1,200 (‐4.6%) below 2010 levels. The projected declines for Carroll County thru 2016 are a continuation of recent trends, where the once fast‐growing suburban jurisdiction has lost about 1,600 students (‐5.7%) over the last five years. These drops in enrollment are a product of the substantial slowdown in residential growth in the County during the last decade caused by both a moratorium on new residential activity, after some very strong growth in earlier years, and development restrictions due to adequate public facility ordinances. These slowdowns earlier in the 2000 to 2010 decade have also been compounded by the housing bust in more recent years. Enrollment growth in Carroll County is expected to resume in the last four years of the projection period, but will still leave 2020 totals below 2010 levels.
Garrett County is expected to have an enrollment total in 2020 that is about 400 (‐9.5%) less than it was in 2010, while Allegany County’s 2020 enrollment is anticipated to be just over 200 (‐2.7%) lower than in 2010. Enrolment declines in Allegany and Garrett are a continuation of long‐term trends for these two rural counties. For instance, in Allegany County (which has been losing household population since the 1950s), public school enrollment has declined in 34 out of the last 37 years. For Garrett County, enrollment declines have been experienced in 31 out of the last 37 years. For both counties, losses are expected to be stronger in the first four to five years of the 10‐year projection period.
Calvert County’s anticipated 2020 enrollment total is expected to be just over 200 (‐1.3%) less than in 2010. However, all of the declines in Calvert’s enrollment are projected to take place in the first six years, leaving the County’s enrolment total 800, or 5.0 percent, below 2010 totals before growth is anticipated to resume. This initial expected decline is a continuation of losses over the last four years (2007‐2010) totaling 700 (‐4.1%), which were due, to a great extent, to the slowdown in overall population growth. Calvert County was once Maryland’s fastest growing jurisdiction, leading the state in the rate of population growth from 1990 to 2004. This growth was fueled mostly by migrants moving to the County from other parts of Maryland, chiefly Prince George’s and Anne Arundel counties. Growth in the latter part of the decade slowed as the County reduced development capacity through down zoning as well as a more stringent adequate public facilities ordinance that restricted development because of over‐crowded schools. Enrollment growth, pushed by cumulative births is expected to begin to grow again in 2017.
Although Prince George’s County is expected to have a larger enrollment total in 2020 than in 2010, it is also expected to have the largest decline in enrollment in the State during the course of the decade. This decline, however, is projected to occur in the first five years, as
Attachment - Question 14C
enrollment for 2015 is anticipated to be nearly 2,600 (‐2.2%) below 2010 totals. These expected losses are a continuation of declines that began in 2004 as the County’s total public school enrollment dropped by just under 13,500 students, or 10.1 percent between 2004 and 2010. These drops in enrollment occurred despite the fact that the County had the second largest numeric increase in population between 2000 and 2010. However, Prince George’s did have the largest drop in the State in five to nine year olds (‐9,600) and ten to fourteen year olds (‐3,800) between 2000 and 2010, an indication of out migration of families with children during the course of the decade.11 It is expected that a substantial number of births and continued foreign immigration will lead to the enrollment turnaround beginning in 2016, and over the last five years the nearly 3,400 increase will leave enrollment totals in 2020 nearly 800 (0.6%) higher than in 2010.
B. Elementary School Enrollment
Twenty‐three of twenty‐four jurisdictions in Maryland are projected to achieve a peak in total elementary enrollment sometime during the next 10 years, the exception being Garrett County. (See Tables 7, 8 and 9.) Sixteen of these jurisdictions are anticipated to achieve these peaks either at the end of the projection period in 2020, or in 2018, and five jurisdictions – Carroll (2011), Baltimore City (2015), Prince George’s (2015), Allegany (2016) and Dorchester (2017), are expected to peak before 2017, with declines thereafter. At the end of the decade, however, only Allegany, Garrett and Worcester are expected to have less elementary enrollment in 2020 than in 2010, (but with Worcester’s enrollment only 10 less).
In most jurisdictions, elementary enrollment growth began in 2007 when the transition to both full‐day kindergarten (2007) as well as the new age‐eligibility requirements for kindergarten (2006) and first‐grade (2007) students were completed. Although growth will continue over the next 10 years, the statewide enrollment increases during the first five years (21,200, or 5.7%) is expected to greatly exceed gains in the latter five years (10,900, or 2.7%).
The largest gains in elementary enrollment over the ten‐year period are expected to be in Baltimore (5,300, or 11.5%), Montgomery (3,700 or 5.7%), Frederick (3,500, or 20.1%), Prince George’s (2,800, or 5.1%) and Charles (2,100, or 19.2%) counties. In addition, Baltimore City is expected to have an enrollment increase of around 3,200 (8.5%) by 2015, before falling to an overall gain of 1,700 (4.6%) by the end of the projection period.
In percentage terms, the largest gains are expected for two Eastern Shore counties ‐ Cecil (27.0%) and Dorchester (25.0% by 2017) – both of which experienced rapid growth during
11 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Demographic Profiles
Attachment - Question 14C
STA
TE/R
EGIO
N/J
UR
ISD
ICTI
ON
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MA
RYL
AN
D37
4,47
137
9,68
038
7,19
039
2,67
039
5,10
039
5,73
039
7,05
039
8,37
039
9,21
040
1,39
040
6,60
0
BA
LTIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N16
8,95
217
1,13
017
4,43
017
7,00
017
8,19
017
7,86
017
8,29
017
8,74
017
8,88
017
9,33
018
1,12
0A
nne
Aru
ndel
Cou
nty
34,305
34,470
35,040
35,400
35,550
35,420
35,680
35,860
35,820
35,810
35,910
Bal
timor
e C
ount
y46
,364
47,570
48,980
50,110
50,870
51,010
51,230
51,420
51,380
51,410
51,710
Car
roll
Cou
nty
11,700
11,730
11,720
11,640
11,410
11,160
11,050
10,980
11,020
11,250
11,720
Har
ford
Cou
nty
16,776
16,930
17,310
17,490
17,650
17,570
17,520
17,550
17,690
17,890
18,340
How
ard
Cou
nty
21,851
21,900
21,970
22,030
21,710
21,520
21,720
22,060
22,510
22,890
23,750
Bal
timor
e C
ity37
,956
38,530
39,410
40,330
41,000
41,180
41,090
40,870
40,460
40,080
39,690
SUB
UR
BA
N W
ASH
ING
TON
REG
ION
136,27
013
8,01
014
0,71
014
2,34
014
3,02
014
3,20
014
3,28
014
3,57
014
3,66
014
4,43
014
6,26
0Fr
eder
ick
Cou
nty
17,584
17,730
18,100
18,290
18,360
18,500
18,660
19,040
19,390
20,090
21,120
Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
64,353
65,180
66,410
67,230
67,550
67,480
67,440
67,400
67,410
67,530
68,020
Prin
ce G
eorg
e's
Cou
nty
54,333
55,100
56,200
56,820
57,110
57,220
57,180
57,130
56,860
56,810
57,120
SOU
THER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
25,104
25,540
26,100
26,510
26,620
26,860
27,070
27,350
27,790
28,450
29,490
Cal
vert
Cou
nty
6,89
16,92
06,85
06,84
06,72
06,66
06,65
06,66
06,87
07,08
07,42
0C
harle
s C
ount
y10
,686
10,860
11,200
11,480
11,530
11,670
11,800
11,930
12,030
12,240
12,740
St.
Mar
y's
Cou
nty
7,52
77,76
08,05
08,19
08,37
08,53
08,62
08,76
08,89
09,13
09,33
0
WES
TER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
15,669
15,820
16,230
16,460
16,570
16,730
16,960
17,000
16,890
17,050
17,190
Alle
gany
Cou
nty
3,85
43,82
03,83
03,86
03,91
03,91
03,96
03,95
03,94
03,90
03,82
0G
arre
tt C
ount
y1,79
71,76
01,79
01,73
01,71
01,69
01,68
01,68
01,63
01,70
01,71
0W
ashi
ngto
n C
ount
y10
,018
10,240
10,610
10,870
10,950
11,130
11,320
11,370
11,320
11,450
11,660
UPP
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N15
,550
15,980
16,380
16,640
16,870
17,080
17,380
17,520
17,870
18,100
18,560
Car
olin
e C
ount
y2,45
82,56
02,61
02,74
02,85
02,93
02,94
02,94
02,96
02,93
02,93
0C
ecil
Cou
nty
6,86
07,05
07,24
07,30
07,34
07,45
07,68
07,83
08,06
08,33
08,71
0K
ent C
ount
y93
097
098
01,03
01,06
01,06
01,09
01,08
01,09
01,06
01,06
0Q
ueen
Ann
e's
Cou
nty
3,36
63,44
03,56
03,59
03,65
03,66
03,70
03,71
03,78
03,80
03,87
0Ta
lbot
Cou
nty
1,93
61,96
01,99
01,98
01,97
01,98
01,97
01,96
01,98
01,98
01,99
0
LOW
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N12
,926
13,200
13,340
13,720
13,830
14,000
14,070
14,190
14,120
14,030
13,980
Dor
ches
ter C
ount
y2,04
02,11
02,18
02,33
02,40
02,44
02,52
02,55
02,53
02,48
02,45
0S
omer
set C
ount
y1,33
61,37
01,37
01,42
01,42
01,41
01,43
01,42
01,43
01,42
01,40
0W
icom
ico
Cou
nty
6,81
06,98
07,09
07,21
07,28
07,44
07,48
07,51
07,45
07,42
07,40
0W
orce
ster
Cou
nty
2,74
02,74
02,70
02,76
02,73
02,71
02,64
02,71
02,71
02,71
02,73
0*
Enr
ollm
ent n
umbe
rs in
bol
d in
dica
te y
ears
in w
hich
enr
ollm
ent w
ill p
eak.
Due
to ro
undi
ng, p
roje
cted
enr
ollm
ents
may
not
add
up
exac
tly to
Sta
te to
tals
.
Sou
rce:
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion,
"Sta
tistic
s on
Enr
ollm
ent a
nd N
umbe
r of S
choo
ls P
ublic
and
Non
-Pub
lic, 2
010.
"P
repa
red
by th
e M
aryl
and
Dep
artm
ent o
f Pla
nnin
g, P
roje
ctio
ns a
nd D
ata
Ana
lysi
s/S
tate
Dat
a C
ente
r, 2
011
to 2
020
TAB
LE 7
. PU
BLI
C E
LEM
ENTA
RY
SCH
OO
L EN
RO
LLM
ENT
(GR
AD
ES K
-5),
BY
JUR
ISD
ICTI
ON
, AC
TUA
L (2
010)
, PR
OJE
CTE
D (2
011-
2020
) *Attachment - Question 14C
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
STA
TE/R
EGIO
N/J
UR
ISD
ICTI
ON
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MA
RYL
AN
D5,20
912
,719
18,199
20,629
21,259
22,579
23,899
24,739
26,919
32,129
BA
LTIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N2,17
85,47
88,04
89,23
88,90
89,33
89,78
89,92
810
,378
12,168
Ann
e A
rund
el C
ount
y16
573
51,09
51,24
51,11
51,37
51,55
51,51
51,50
51,60
5B
altim
ore
Cou
nty
1,20
62,61
63,74
64,50
64,64
64,86
65,05
65,01
65,04
65,34
6C
arro
ll C
ount
y30
20‐60
‐290
‐540
‐650
‐720
‐680
‐450
20H
arfo
rd C
ount
y15
453
471
487
479
474
477
491
41,11
41,56
4H
owar
d C
ount
y49
119
179
‐141
‐331
‐131
209
659
1,03
91,89
9B
altim
ore
City
574
1,45
42,37
43,04
43,22
43,13
42,91
42,50
42,12
41,73
4
SUB
UR
BA
N W
ASH
ING
TON
REG
ION
1,74
04,44
06,07
06,75
06,93
07,01
07,30
07,39
08,16
09,99
0Fr
eder
ick
Cou
nty
146
516
706
776
916
1,07
61,45
61,80
62,50
63,53
6M
ontg
omer
y C
ount
y82
72,05
72,87
73,19
73,12
73,08
73,04
73,05
73,17
73,66
7P
rince
Geo
rge'
s C
ount
y76
71,86
72,48
72,77
72,88
72,84
72,79
72,52
72,47
72,78
7
SOU
THER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
436
996
1,40
61,51
61,75
61,96
62,24
62,68
63,34
64,38
6C
alve
rt C
ount
y29
‐41
‐51
‐171
‐231
‐241
‐231
‐21
189
529
Cha
rles
Cou
nty
174
514
794
844
984
1,11
41,24
41,34
41,55
42,05
4S
t. M
ary'
s C
ount
y23
352
366
384
31,00
31,09
31,23
31,36
31,60
31,80
3
WES
TER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
151
561
791
901
1,06
11,29
11,33
11,22
11,38
11,52
1A
llega
ny C
ount
y‐34
‐24
656
5610
696
8646
‐34
Gar
rett
Cou
nty
‐37
‐7‐67
‐87
‐107
‐117
‐117
‐167
‐97
‐87
Was
hing
ton
Cou
nty
222
592
852
932
1,11
21,30
21,35
21,30
21,43
21,64
2
UPP
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N43
083
01,09
01,32
01,53
01,83
01,97
02,32
02,55
03,01
0C
arol
ine
Cou
nty
102
152
282
392
472
482
482
502
472
472
Cec
il C
ount
y19
038
044
048
059
082
097
01,20
01,47
01,85
0K
ent C
ount
y40
5010
013
013
016
015
016
013
013
0Q
ueen
Ann
e's
Cou
nty
7419
422
428
429
433
434
441
443
450
4Ta
lbot
Cou
nty
2454
4434
4434
2444
4454
LOW
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N27
441
479
490
41,07
41,14
41,26
41,19
41,10
41,05
4D
orch
este
r Cou
nty
7014
029
036
040
048
051
049
044
041
0S
omer
set C
ount
y34
3484
8474
9484
9484
64W
icom
ico
Cou
nty
170
280
400
470
630
670
700
640
610
590
Wor
cest
er C
ount
y0
‐40
20‐10
‐30
‐100
‐30
‐30
‐30
‐10
* E
nrol
lmen
t num
bers
in b
old
indi
cate
yea
rs in
whi
ch e
nrol
lmen
t will
pea
k. D
ue to
roun
ding
, pro
ject
ed e
nrol
lmen
ts m
ay n
ot a
dd u
p ex
actly
to S
tate
tota
ls.
Sou
rce:
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion,
"Sta
tistic
s on
Enr
ollm
ent a
nd N
umbe
r of S
choo
ls P
ublic
and
Non
-Pub
lic, 2
010.
"P
repa
red
by th
e M
aryl
and
Dep
artm
ent o
f Pla
nnin
g, P
roje
ctio
ns a
nd D
ata
Ana
lysi
s/S
tate
Dat
a C
ente
r, 2
011
to 2
020.
TAB
LE 8
. C
UM
ULA
TIVE
CH
AN
GE
IN P
UB
LIC
ELE
MEN
TAR
Y SC
HO
OL
ENR
OLL
MEN
T (G
RA
DES
K-5
) FR
OM
AC
TUA
L 20
10, B
Y JU
RIS
DIC
TIO
N
Attachment - Question 14C
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
STAT
E/R
EGIO
N/J
UR
ISD
ICTI
ON
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MAR
YLAN
D1.4%
3.4%
4.9%
5.5%
5.7%
6.0%
6.4%
6.6%
7.2%
8.6%
BAL
TIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N1.3%
3.2%
4.8%
5.5%
5.3%
5.5%
5.8%
5.9%
6.1%
7.2%
Anne
Aru
ndel
Cou
nty
0.5%
2.1%
3.2%
3.6%
3.3%
4.0%
4.5%
4.4%
4.4%
4.7%
Balti
mor
e C
ount
y2.6%
5.6%
8.1%
9.7%
10.0%
10.5%
10.9%
10.8%
10.9%
11.5%
Car
roll
Cou
nty
0.3%
0.2%
‐0.5%
‐2.5%
‐4.6%
‐5.6%
‐6.2%
‐5.8%
‐3.8%
0.2%
Har
ford
Cou
nty
0.9%
3.2%
4.3%
5.2%
4.7%
4.4%
4.6%
5.4%
6.6%
9.3%
How
ard
Cou
nty
0.2%
0.5%
0.8%
‐0.6%
‐1.5%
‐0.6%
1.0%
3.0%
4.8%
8.7%
Balti
mor
e C
ity1.5%
3.8%
6.3%
8.0%
8.5%
8.3%
7.7%
6.6%
5.6%
4.6%
SUB
UR
BAN
WAS
HIN
GTO
N R
EGIO
N1.3%
3.3%
4.5%
5.0%
5.1%
5.1%
5.4%
5.4%
6.0%
7.3%
Fred
eric
k C
ount
y0.8%
2.9%
4.0%
4.4%
5.2%
6.1%
8.3%
10.3%
14.3%
20.1%
Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
1.3%
3.2%
4.5%
5.0%
4.9%
4.8%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.7%
Prin
ce G
eorg
e's
Cou
nty
1.4%
3.4%
4.6%
5.1%
5.3%
5.2%
5.1%
4.7%
4.6%
5.1%
SOU
THER
N M
ARYL
AND
REG
ION
1.7%
4.0%
5.6%
6.0%
7.0%
7.8%
8.9%
10.7%
13.3%
17.5%
Cal
vert
Cou
nty
0.4%
‐0.6%
‐0.7%
‐2.5%
‐3.4%
‐3.5%
‐3.4%
‐0.3%
2.7%
7.7%
Cha
rles
Cou
nty
1.6%
4.8%
7.4%
7.9%
9.2%
10.4%
11.6%
12.6%
14.5%
19.2%
St. M
ary'
s C
ount
y3.1%
6.9%
8.8%
11.2%
13.3%
14.5%
16.4%
18.1%
21.3%
24.0%
TAB
LE 9
. CU
MU
LATI
VE P
CT
CH
ANG
E IN
PU
BLI
C E
LEM
ENTA
RY
SCH
OO
L EN
RO
LLM
ENT
(GR
ADES
K-5
) FR
OM
AC
TUAL
201
0, B
Y JU
RIS
DIC
TIO
N
WES
TER
N M
ARYL
AND
REG
ION
1.0%
3.6%
5.0%
5.8%
6.8%
8.2%
8.5%
7.8%
8.8%
9.7%
Alle
gany
Cou
nty
‐0.9%
‐0.6%
0.2%
1.5%
1.5%
2.8%
2.5%
2.2%
1.2%
‐0.9%
Gar
rett
Cou
nty
‐2.1%
‐0.4%
‐3.7%
‐4.8%
‐6.0%
‐6.5%
‐6.5%
‐9.3%
‐5.4%
‐4.8%
Was
hing
ton
Cou
nty
2.2%
5.9%
8.5%
9.3%
11.1%
13.0%
13.5%
13.0%
14.3%
16.4%
UPP
ER E
ASTE
RN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N2.8%
5.3%
7.0%
8.5%
9.8%
11.8%
12.7%
14.9%
16.4%
19.4%
Car
olin
e C
ount
y4.1%
6.2%
11.5%
15.9%
19.2%
19.6%
19.6%
20.4%
19.2%
19.2%
Cec
il C
ount
y2.8%
5.5%
6.4%
7.0%
8.6%
12.0%
14.1%
17.5%
21.4%
27.0%
Kent
Cou
nty
4.3%
5.4%
10.8%
14.0%
14.0%
17.2%
16.1%
17.2%
14.0%
14.0%
Que
en A
nne'
s C
ount
y2.2%
5.8%
6.7%
8.4%
8.7%
9.9%
10.2%
12.3%
12.9%
15.0%
Talb
ot C
ount
y1.2%
2.8%
2.3%
1.8%
2.3%
1.8%
1.2%
2.3%
2.3%
2.8%
LOW
ER E
ASTE
RN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N2.1%
3.2%
6.1%
7.0%
8.3%
8.9%
9.8%
9.2%
8.5%
8.2%
Dor
ches
ter C
ount
y3.4%
6.9%
14.2%
17.6%
19.6%
23.5%
25.0%
24.0%
21.6%
20.1%
Som
erse
t Cou
nty
2.5%
2.5%
6.3%
6.3%
5.5%
7.0%
6.3%
7.0%
6.3%
4.8%
Wic
omic
o C
ount
y2.5%
4.1%
5.9%
6.9%
9.3%
9.8%
10.3%
9.4%
9.0%
8.7%
Wor
cest
er C
ount
y0.0%
‐1.5%
0.7%
‐0.4%
‐1.1%
‐3.6%
‐1.1%
‐1.1%
‐1.1%
‐0.4%
* Enr
ollm
ent n
umbe
rs in
bol
d in
dica
te y
ears
in w
hich
enr
ollm
ent w
ill p
eak.
Sour
ce: M
aryl
and
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
catio
n, "S
tatis
tics
on E
nrol
lmen
t and
Num
ber o
f Sch
ools
Pub
lic a
nd N
on-P
ublic
, 201
0."
Prep
ared
by
the
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of P
lann
ing,
Pro
ject
ions
and
Dat
a An
alys
is/S
tate
Dat
a C
ente
r, 2
011
to 2
020.
Attachment - Question 14C
the expansion of the housing bubble earlier in the decade. Rounding out the top five percentage increases are two counties in Southern Maryland ‐ St. Mary’s (24.0%) and Charles (19.2%), in addition to Frederick County (20.1%) in the Washington Suburban Region – all of which have had strong overall population growth since the 1980s.
For Garrett County, modest declines throughout most of the next 10 years will leave public elementary enrollment about 87 (‐4.8%) below the 2010 level. For Allegany County, gains between 2011 and 2016 are expected to lead to a peak enrollment in 2016 about 100 (2.8%) greater than in 2010, but losses thereafter will leave the County’s 2020 total about 30 students below 2010.
Two other counties will also experience multiple years of enrollment losses like Allegany
County, but will still wind up with 2020 elementary totals greater than the 2010 level. For Calvert, declines of 3.5 percent are expected to occur between 2011 and 2016 before gains begin again and leave 2020 totals about 500 (7.7%) more than in 2010. Similarly, Carroll County is expected to experience drops over the 2012 to 2017 period amounting to just over 700 students (‐6.2%) before growth resumes and leaves 2020 totals at about the same level as in 2010. C. Middle School Enrollment
With the tail end of the baby boom echo population transitioning out from their middle school years, middle school enrollment is expected to have an up and down pattern over the next two years. Thereafter, however, with growth resuming in 2013, 21 of the 24 jurisdictions will have higher enrollment totals in 2020 than in 2010, with nineteen achieving this peak either in 2019 or 2020. (See Tables 10, 11 and 12.)
The largest increases in middle school students during the course of the 10‐year projection period are expected in Montgomery County (4,100, or 13.3%), Baltimore County (3,900, or 17.3%), Baltimore City (2,900, or 17.5%), Anne Arundel County (1,900, or 11.1%), and Prince George’s County (2,000, or 6.6%). Montgomery and Prince George’s counties are anticipated to peak in 2019, with the remaining three jurisdictions having their highest totals in 2020. In the case of Montgomery County and Baltimore City, middle school enrollment is expected to grow throughout the projection period, but nearly two‐thirds of the growth is projected in the first five years for Montgomery County, while only one‐fourth of the 10‐year gain is projected for Baltimore City in the first five years. In Prince George’s County, on the other hand, declines totaling just under 700 (‐2.6%) are seen for the first two years before steady growth begins and carries through to 2019, with just over three‐quarters of the 10 year gain occurring in the last five years.
Attachment - Question 14C
STA
TE/R
EGIO
N/J
UR
ISD
ICTI
ON
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MA
RYL
AN
D18
4,06
818
4,55
018
4,21
018
7,59
019
0,28
019
4,24
019
6,39
019
9,30
020
3,33
020
6,55
020
6,06
0
BA
LTIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N82
,306
83,100
82,640
83,860
84,990
87,100
87,800
88,830
90,120
91,790
91,820
Ann
e A
rund
el C
ount
y16
,782
17,060
17,040
17,270
17,510
17,990
17,920
17,860
17,960
18,400
18,640
Bal
timor
e C
ount
y22
,574
22,690
22,540
22,700
23,160
24,070
24,670
25,280
25,820
26,340
26,470
Car
roll
Cou
nty
6,13
86,16
06,08
06,21
06,20
06,24
06,23
06,28
06,26
06,12
05,82
0H
arfo
rd C
ount
y8,66
98,70
08,49
08,67
08,58
08,80
08,79
09,03
09,20
09,35
09,25
0H
owar
d C
ount
y11
,484
11,630
11,570
11,980
12,270
12,600
12,480
12,200
11,950
12,140
12,060
Bal
timor
e C
ity16
,659
16,860
16,920
17,030
17,270
17,400
17,710
18,180
18,930
19,440
19,580
SUB
UR
BA
N W
ASH
ING
TON
REG
ION
66,331
66,150
65,960
67,130
67,980
69,630
70,790
71,930
73,020
73,520
73,100
Fred
eric
k C
ount
y8,89
48,95
08,95
09,12
09,16
09,23
09,31
09,46
09,80
09,95
09,93
0M
ontg
omer
y C
ount
y30
,860
30,960
31,120
31,770
32,430
33,410
34,050
34,490
34,760
34,960
34,840
Prin
ce G
eorg
e's
Cou
nty
26,577
26,240
25,890
26,240
26,390
26,990
27,430
27,980
28,460
28,610
28,330
SOU
THER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
13,728
13,590
13,590
13,960
14,230
14,380
14,530
14,800
15,400
15,730
15,610
Cal
vert
Cou
nty
3,84
73,81
03,79
03,83
03,84
03,76
03,71
03,73
03,74
03,77
03,62
0C
harle
s C
ount
y6,12
16,08
06,03
06,23
06,34
06,47
06,55
06,65
07,02
07,29
07,27
0S
t. M
ary'
s C
ount
y3,76
03,70
03,77
03,90
04,05
04,15
04,27
04,42
04,64
04,67
04,72
0
WES
TER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
7,93
27,98
07,96
08,01
08,04
08,14
08,17
08,34
08,72
08,86
08,85
0A
llega
ny C
ount
y1,95
21,96
01,92
01,93
01,91
01,92
01,87
01,89
01,87
01,95
02,00
0G
arre
tt C
ount
y92
194
092
089
089
092
094
091
092
084
083
0W
ashi
ngto
n C
ount
y5,05
95,08
05,12
05,19
05,24
05,30
05,36
05,54
05,93
06,07
06,02
0
UPP
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N7,77
27,83
07,87
08,28
08,44
08,54
08,51
08,82
09,17
09,52
09,40
0C
arol
ine
Cou
nty
1,12
61,11
01,15
01,22
01,24
01,23
01,29
01,40
01,50
01,57
01,56
0C
ecil
Cou
nty
3,59
23,61
03,58
03,72
03,83
03,85
03,78
03,86
04,05
04,21
04,17
0K
ent C
ount
y46
646
045
046
043
044
046
051
050
054
051
0Q
ueen
Ann
e's
Cou
nty
1,68
11,71
01,75
01,85
01,89
01,96
01,95
02,02
02,07
02,14
02,11
0Ta
lbot
Cou
nty
907
940
940
1,03
01,05
01,06
01,03
01,03
01,05
01,06
01,05
0
LOW
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N5,99
95,90
06,19
06,35
06,60
06,45
06,59
06,58
06,90
07,13
07,28
0D
orch
este
r Cou
nty
979
950
1,02
01,05
01,11
01,11
01,13
01,15
01,24
01,37
01,42
0S
omer
set C
ount
y56
760
064
066
067
071
074
076
073
074
074
0W
icom
ico
Cou
nty
2,99
82,92
03,04
03,19
03,32
03,20
03,20
03,20
03,41
03,53
03,58
0W
orce
ster
Cou
nty
1,45
51,43
01,49
01,45
01,50
01,43
01,52
01,47
01,52
01,49
01,54
0*
Enr
ollm
ent n
umbe
rs in
bol
d in
dica
te y
ears
in w
hich
enr
ollm
ent w
ill p
eak.
Due
to ro
undi
ng, p
roje
cted
enr
ollm
ents
may
not
add
up
exac
tly to
Sta
te to
tals
.
Sou
rce:
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion,
"Sta
tistic
s on
Enr
ollm
ent a
nd N
umbe
r of S
choo
ls P
ublic
and
Non
-Pub
lic, 2
010.
"P
repa
red
by th
e M
aryl
and
Dep
artm
ent o
f Pla
nnin
g, P
roje
ctio
ns a
nd D
ata
Ana
lysi
s/S
tate
Dat
a C
ente
r, 2
011
to 2
020.
TAB
LE 1
0. P
UB
LIC
MID
DLE
SC
HO
OL
ENR
OLL
MEN
T (G
RA
DES
6-8
), B
Y JU
RIS
DIC
TIO
N, A
CTU
AL
(201
0) &
PR
OJE
CTE
D (2
011-
2020
) *Attachment - Question 14C
TAB
LE 1
1. C
UM
ULA
TIVE
CH
AN
GE
IN P
UB
LIC
MID
DLE
SC
HO
OL
ENR
OLL
MEN
T (G
RA
DES
6-8
) FR
OM
AC
TUA
L 20
10, B
Y JU
RIS
DIC
TIO
N *
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
STA
TE/R
EGIO
N/J
UR
ISD
ICTI
ON
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MA
RYL
AN
D48
214
23,52
26,21
210
,172
12,322
15,232
19,262
22,482
21,992
BA
LTIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N79
433
41,55
42,68
44,79
45,49
46,52
47,81
49,48
49,51
4A
nne
Aru
ndel
Cou
nty
278
258
488
728
1,20
81,13
81,07
81,17
81,61
81,85
8B
altim
ore
Cou
nty
116
‐34
126
586
1,49
62,09
62,70
63,24
63,76
63,89
6C
arro
ll C
ount
y22
‐58
7262
102
9214
212
2‐18
‐318
Har
ford
Cou
nty
31‐179
1‐89
131
121
361
531
681
581
How
ard
Cou
nty
146
8649
678
61,11
699
671
646
665
657
6B
altim
ore
City
201
261
371
611
741
1,05
11,52
12,27
12,78
12,92
1
SUB
UR
BA
N W
ASH
ING
TON
REG
ION
‐181
‐371
799
1,64
93,29
94,45
95,59
96,68
97,18
96,76
9Fr
eder
ick
Cou
nty
5656
226
266
336
416
566
906
1,05
61,03
6M
ontg
omer
y C
ount
y10
026
091
01,57
02,55
03,19
03,63
03,90
04,10
03,98
0P
rince
Geo
rge'
s C
ount
y‐337
‐687
‐337
‐187
413
853
1,40
31,88
32,03
31,75
3
SOU
THER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
‐138
‐138
232
502
652
802
1,07
21,67
22,00
21,88
2C
alve
rt C
ount
y‐37
‐57
‐17
‐7‐87
‐137
‐117
‐107
‐77
‐227
Cha
rles
Cou
nty
‐41
‐91
109
219
349
429
529
899
1,16
91,14
9S
t. M
ary'
s C
ount
y‐60
1014
029
039
051
066
088
091
096
0
WES
TER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
4828
7810
820
823
840
878
892
891
8A
llega
ny C
ount
y8
‐32
‐22
‐42
‐32
‐82
‐62
‐82
‐248
Gar
rett
Cou
nty
19‐1
‐31
‐31
‐119
‐11
‐1‐81
‐91
Was
hing
ton
Cou
nty
2161
131
181
241
301
481
871
1,01
196
1
UPP
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N58
9850
866
876
873
81,04
81,39
81,74
81,62
8C
arol
ine
Cou
nty
‐16
2494
114
104
164
274
374
444
434
Cec
il C
ount
y18
‐12
128
238
258
188
268
458
618
578
Ken
t Cou
nty
‐6‐16
‐6‐36
‐26
‐644
3474
44Q
ueen
Ann
e's
Cou
nty
2969
169
209
279
269
339
389
459
429
Talb
ot C
ount
y33
3312
314
315
312
312
314
315
314
3
LOW
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N‐99
191
351
601
451
591
581
901
1,13
11,28
1D
orch
este
r Cou
nty
‐29
4171
131
131
151
171
261
391
441
Som
erse
t Cou
nty
3373
9310
314
317
319
316
317
317
3W
icom
ico
Cou
nty
‐78
4219
232
220
220
220
241
253
258
2W
orce
ster
Cou
nty
‐25
35‐5
45‐25
6515
6535
85*
Enr
ollm
ent n
umbe
rs in
bol
d in
dica
te y
ears
in w
hich
enr
ollm
ent w
ill p
eak.
Due
to ro
undi
ng, p
roje
cted
enr
ollm
ents
may
not
add
up
exac
tly to
Sta
te to
tals
.
Sou
rce:
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion,
"Sta
tistic
s on
Enr
ollm
ent a
nd N
umbe
r of S
choo
ls P
ublic
and
Non
-Pub
lic, 2
010.
"P
repa
red
by th
e M
aryl
and
Dep
artm
ent o
f Pla
nnin
g, P
roje
ctio
ns a
nd D
ata
Ana
lysi
s/S
tate
Dat
a C
ente
r, 2
011
to 2
020.
Attachment - Question 14C
TAB
LE 1
2. C
UM
ULA
TIVE
PER
CEN
T C
HA
NG
E IN
PU
BLI
C M
IDD
LE S
CH
OO
L EN
RO
LLM
ENT
(GR
AD
ES 6
-8) F
RO
M A
CTU
AL
2010
, BY
JUR
ISD
ICTI
ON
*
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
STA
TE/R
EGIO
N/J
UR
ISD
ICTI
ON
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MA
RYL
AN
D0.3%
0.1%
1.9%
3.4%
5.5%
6.7%
8.3%
10.5%
12.2%
11.9%
BA
LTIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N1.0%
0.4%
1.9%
3.3%
5.8%
6.7%
7.9%
9.5%
11.5%
11.6%
Ann
e A
rund
el C
ount
y1.7%
1.5%
2.9%
4.3%
7.2%
6.8%
6.4%
7.0%
9.6%
11.1%
Bal
timor
e C
ount
y0.5%
‐0.2%
0.6%
2.6%
6.6%
9.3%
12.0%
14.4%
16.7%
17.3%
Car
roll
Cou
nty
0.4%
‐0.9%
1.2%
1.0%
1.7%
1.5%
2.3%
2.0%
‐0.3%
‐5.2%
Har
ford
Cou
nty
0.4%
‐2.1%
0.0%
‐1.0%
1.5%
1.4%
4.2%
6.1%
7.9%
6.7%
How
ard
Cou
nty
1.3%
0.7%
4.3%
6.8%
9.7%
8.7%
6.2%
4.1%
5.7%
5.0%
Bal
timor
e C
ity1.2%
1.6%
2.2%
3.7%
4.4%
6.3%
9.1%
13.6%
16.7%
17.5%
SUB
UR
BA
N W
ASH
ING
TON
REG
ION
‐0.3%
‐0.6%
1.2%
2.5%
5.0%
6.7%
8.4%
10.1%
10.8%
10.2%
Fred
eric
k C
ount
y0.6%
0.6%
2.5%
3.0%
3.8%
4.7%
6.4%
10.2%
11.9%
11.6%
Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
0.3%
0.8%
2.9%
5.1%
8.3%
10.3%
11.8%
12.6%
13.3%
12.9%
Prin
ce G
eorg
e's
Cou
nty
‐1.3%
‐2.6%
‐1.3%
‐0.7%
1.6%
3.2%
5.3%
7.1%
7.6%
6.6%
SOU
THER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
‐1.0%
‐1.0%
1.7%
3.7%
4.7%
5.8%
7.8%
12.2%
14.6%
13.7%
Cal
vert
Cou
nty
‐1.0%
‐1.5%
‐0.4%
‐0.2%
‐2.3%
‐3.6%
‐3.0%
‐2.8%
‐2.0%
‐5.9%
Cha
rles
Cou
nty
‐0.7%
‐1.5%
1.8%
3.6%
5.7%
7.0%
8.6%
14.7%
19.1%
18.8%
St.
Mar
y's
Cou
nty
‐1.6%
0.3%
3.7%
7.7%
10.4%
13.6%
17.6%
23.4%
24.2%
25.5%
WES
TER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
0.6%
0.4%
1.0%
1.4%
2.6%
3.0%
5.1%
9.9%
11.7%
11.6%
Alle
gany
Cou
nty
0.4%
‐1.6%
‐1.1%
‐2.2%
‐1.6%
‐4.2%
‐3.2%
‐4.2%
‐0.1%
2.5%
Gar
rett
Cou
nty
2.1%
‐0.1%
‐3.4%
‐3.4%
‐0.1%
2.1%
‐1.2%
‐0.1%
‐8.8%
‐9.9%
Was
hing
ton
Cou
nty
0.4%
1.2%
2.6%
3.6%
4.8%
5.9%
9.5%
17.2%
20.0%
19.0%
UPP
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N0.7%
1.3%
6.5%
8.6%
9.9%
9.5%
13.5%
18.0%
22.5%
20.9%
Car
olin
e C
ount
y‐1.4%
2.1%
8.3%
10.1%
9.2%
14.6%
24.3%
33.2%
39.4%
38.5%
Cec
il C
ount
y0.5%
‐0.3%
3.6%
6.6%
7.2%
5.2%
7.5%
12.8%
17.2%
16.1%
Ken
t Cou
nty
‐1.3%
‐3.4%
‐1.3%
‐7.7%
‐5.6%
‐1.3%
9.4%
7.3%
15.9%
9.4%
Que
en A
nne'
s C
ount
y1.7%
4.1%
10.1%
12.4%
16.6%
16.0%
20.2%
23.1%
27.3%
25.5%
Talb
ot C
ount
y3.6%
3.6%
13.6%
15.8%
16.9%
13.6%
13.6%
15.8%
16.9%
15.8%
LOW
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N‐1.7%
3.2%
5.9%
10.0%
7.5%
9.9%
9.7%
15.0%
18.9%
21.4%
Dor
ches
ter C
ount
y‐3.0%
4.2%
7.3%
13.4%
13.4%
15.4%
17.5%
26.7%
39.9%
45.0%
Som
erse
t Cou
nty
5.8%
12.9%
16.4%
18.2%
25.2%
30.5%
34.0%
28.7%
30.5%
30.5%
Wic
omic
o C
ount
y‐2.6%
1.4%
6.4%
10.7%
6.7%
6.7%
6.7%
13.7%
17.7%
19.4%
Wor
cest
er C
ount
y‐1.7%
2.4%
‐0.3%
3.1%
‐1.7%
4.5%
1.0%
4.5%
2.4%
5.8%
* E
nrol
lmen
t num
bers
in b
old
indi
cate
yea
rs in
whi
ch e
nrol
lmen
t will
pea
k.
Sou
rce:
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion,
"Sta
tistic
s on
Enr
ollm
ent a
nd N
umbe
r of S
choo
ls P
ublic
and
Non
-Pub
lic, 2
010.
"P
repa
red
by th
e M
aryl
and
Dep
artm
ent o
f Pla
nnin
g, P
roje
ctio
ns a
nd D
ata
Ana
lysi
s/S
tate
Dat
a C
ente
r, 2
011
to 2
020.
Attachment - Question 14C
Carroll County (‐300, or ‐5.2%) is expected to have the largest decline in Middle School enrollment of the three jurisdictions anticipated to have losses. However, almost all of Carroll County’s loss is projected to occur over the last two years of the projection period. Prior to the last two years, Carroll is expected to have a modest increase in its middle school enrollment (142, or 2.3%) by 2017.
For Calvert County, the 200 (‐5.9%) drop by 2020 from 2010 totals is a function of mostly modest gains and losses over the course of the 10‐year period, up until 2020 when most of the loss occurs. Similarly, Garrett County’s middle school enrollment is seen as experiencing small gains and losses until the final two years when most of the overall decline of 91 (‐9.9%) occurs.
D. High School Enrollment
High school enrollment is projected to decline over the next five years in Maryland before beginning to grow again in 2016. Growth over the 2016 to 2020 period will leave overall high school enrollment slightly above (3,600, or 1.4%) 2010 levels. With this growth, 13 jurisdictions in Maryland are expected to experience a peak in high school enrollment over the 10‐year period in 2020, and two (Howard and Talbot) in 2019. (See Tables 13, 14 and 15.)
Of the top five jurisdictions with the largest gains by 2020: Montgomery (2,900, or 6.3%), St. Mary’s (900, or 16.7%), Baltimore County (800, or 2.6%), Washington (800, or 12.6%) and Anne Arundel (800, or 3.5%) all but Washington are expected to have anywhere from two to five years of decline before growth becomes more permanent. Washington County is the only jurisdiction over the next 10 years not expected to have some years of enrollment decline. Of the remaining jurisdictions with the largest gains, Montgomery County is projected to achieve net gains over 2010 levels by 2017, with St. Mary’s reaching this milestone by 2014, Baltimore by 2019, and Anne Arundel by 2017.
Nine jurisdictions are expected to have a lower high school enrollment total in 2020 than in 2010. The largest declines in high school enrollments at the end of the 10‐year projection period are seen in Prince George’s (‐3,800, or ‐9.6%), Carroll (‐500, or ‐5.8%), Calvert (‐500, or ‐9.2%), Allegany (‐200, or ‐8.9%), and Garrett (‐200, or ‐15.5%) counties. For most of these counties, the declines actually are greatest sometime before 2020. For instance, Prince George’s high school enrollment is anticipated to drop by nearly 5,900 students (‐15.0%) by 2015, before beginning to grow during the last five years, adding 2,100 students.
Attachment - Question 14C
STA
TE/R
EGIO
N/J
UR
ISD
ICTI
ON
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MA
RYL
AN
D26
4,05
526
1,04
025
6,56
025
0,87
024
9,55
024
9,22
025
1,56
025
5,91
025
9,39
026
3,78
026
7,68
0
BA
LTIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N11
6,69
211
5,45
011
3,86
011
1,30
011
1,09
011
1,29
011
2,07
011
3,73
011
5,54
011
7,20
011
8,66
0A
nne
Aru
ndel
Cou
nty
22,724
22,790
22,590
22,310
22,340
22,400
22,610
23,000
23,390
23,430
23,520
Bal
timor
e C
ount
y31
,609
30,890
30,250
29,700
29,410
29,360
29,560
29,920
30,820
31,680
32,440
Car
roll
Cou
nty
9,22
58,98
08,81
08,60
08,56
08,54
08,55
08,61
08,64
08,70
08,69
0H
arfo
rd C
ount
y12
,167
12,160
12,080
11,780
11,780
11,580
11,650
11,700
11,690
11,950
12,080
How
ard
Cou
nty
16,656
16,630
16,580
16,020
16,050
16,170
16,320
16,890
17,190
17,230
17,050
Bal
timor
e C
ity24
,311
24,000
23,550
22,890
22,950
23,240
23,380
23,610
23,810
24,210
24,880
SUB
UR
BA
N W
ASH
ING
TON
REG
ION
97,3
7096
,150
94,1
3091
,510
90,1
3089
,530
90,3
2091
,840
93,3
2095
,300
96,7
70Fr
eder
ick
Cou
nty
12,726
12,620
12,560
12,360
12,350
12,420
12,510
12,660
12,690
12,860
13,020
Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
45,307
45,310
45,100
44,000
43,620
43,660
44,270
45,330
46,290
47,370
48,180
Prin
ce G
eorg
e's
Cou
nty
39,337
38,220
36,470
35,150
34,160
33,450
33,540
33,850
34,340
35,070
35,570
SOU
THER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
20,0
3420
,030
19,7
8019
,410
19,6
0019
,400
19,6
6020
,170
20,2
3020
,650
21,0
40C
alve
rt C
ount
y5,67
25,52
05,43
05,29
05,27
05,23
05,23
05,26
05,17
05,13
05,15
0C
harle
s C
ount
y9,18
59,26
09,22
09,00
09,10
08,98
09,05
09,39
09,41
09,62
09,85
0S
t. M
ary'
s C
ount
y5,17
75,25
05,13
05,12
05,23
05,19
05,38
05,52
05,65
05,90
06,04
0
WES
TER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
10,6
7310
,530
10,4
7010
,520
10,5
5010
,560
10,5
8010
,730
10,7
3010
,820
11,0
50A
llega
ny C
ount
y2,71
02,64
02,63
02,57
02,56
02,53
02,50
02,52
02,51
02,46
02,47
0G
arre
tt C
ount
y1,37
21,27
01,22
01,20
01,18
01,18
01,14
01,15
01,15
01,16
01,16
0W
ashi
ngto
n C
ount
y6,59
16,62
06,62
06,75
06,81
06,85
06,94
07,06
07,07
07,20
07,42
0
UPP
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N10
,985
10,7
5010
,520
10,3
9010
,460
10,5
1010
,910
11,1
8011
,240
11,5
0011
,750
Car
olin
e C
ount
y1,59
01,56
01,52
01,47
01,47
01,50
01,56
01,61
01,63
01,69
01,81
0C
ecil
Cou
nty
4,89
54,78
04,69
04,63
04,65
04,67
04,78
04,90
04,91
04,95
05,04
0K
ent C
ount
y63
964
060
058
061
058
058
058
056
059
063
0Q
ueen
Ann
e's
Cou
nty
2,44
62,41
02,35
02,39
02,40
02,41
02,56
02,61
02,67
02,77
02,79
0Ta
lbot
Cou
nty
1,41
51,36
01,36
01,32
01,33
01,35
01,43
01,48
01,47
01,50
01,48
0
LOW
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N8,
301
8,13
07,
800
7,74
07,
720
7,93
08,
020
8,26
08,
330
8,31
08,
410
Dor
ches
ter C
ount
y1,36
01,39
01,32
01,30
01,30
01,33
01,35
01,43
01,47
01,45
01,53
0S
omer
set C
ount
y80
373
067
065
065
069
072
073
079
078
081
0W
icom
ico
Cou
nty
4,00
23,88
03,71
03,64
03,62
03,71
03,80
03,95
03,93
03,94
03,94
0W
orce
ster
Cou
nty
2,13
62,13
02,10
02,15
02,15
02,20
02,15
02,15
02,14
02,14
02,13
0*
Enr
ollm
ent n
umbe
rs in
bol
d in
dica
te y
ears
in w
hich
enr
ollm
ent w
ill p
eak.
Due
to ro
undi
ng, p
roje
cted
enr
ollm
ents
may
not
add
up
exac
tly to
Sta
te to
tals
.
Sou
rce:
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion,
"Sta
tistic
s on
Enr
ollm
ent a
nd N
umbe
r of S
choo
ls P
ublic
and
Non
-Pub
lic, 2
010.
"P
repa
red
by th
e M
aryl
and
Dep
artm
ent o
f Pla
nnin
g, P
roje
ctio
ns a
nd D
ata
Ana
lysi
s/S
tate
Dat
a C
ente
r, 2
011
to 2
020.
TAB
LE 1
3. P
UB
LIC
HIG
H S
CH
OO
L EN
RO
LLM
ENT
(GR
AD
ES 9
-12)
, BY
JUR
ISD
ICTI
ON
, AC
TUA
L (2
010)
& P
RO
JEC
TED
(201
1-20
20) *
Attachment - Question 14C
TAB
LE 1
4. C
UM
ULA
TIVE
CH
AN
GE
IN P
UB
LIC
HIG
H S
CH
OO
L EN
RO
LLM
ENT
(GR
AD
ES 9
-12)
FR
OM
AC
TUA
L 20
10, B
Y JU
RIS
DIC
TIO
N *
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
STA
TE/R
EGIO
N/J
UR
ISD
ICTI
ON
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MA
RYL
AN
D‐3,015
‐7,495
‐13,18
5‐14,50
5‐14,83
5‐12,49
5‐8,145
‐4,665
‐275
3,62
5
BA
LTIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N‐1,242
‐2,832
‐5,392
‐5,602
‐5,402
‐4,622
‐2,962
‐1,152
508
1,96
8A
nne
Aru
ndel
Cou
nty
66‐134
‐414
‐384
‐324
‐114
276
666
706
796
Bal
timor
e C
ount
y‐719
‐1,359
‐1,909
‐2,199
‐2,249
‐2,049
‐1,689
‐789
7183
1C
arro
ll C
ount
y‐245
‐415
‐625
‐665
‐685
‐675
‐615
‐585
‐525
‐535
Har
ford
Cou
nty
‐7‐87
‐387
‐387
‐587
‐517
‐467
‐477
‐217
‐87
How
ard
Cou
nty
‐26
‐76
‐636
‐606
‐486
‐336
234
534
574
394
Bal
timor
e C
ity‐311
‐761
‐1,421
‐1,361
‐1,071
‐931
‐701
‐501
‐101
569
SUB
UR
BA
N W
ASH
ING
TON
REG
ION
‐1,220
‐3,240
‐5,860
‐7,240
‐7,840
‐7,050
‐5,530
‐4,050
‐2,070
‐600
Fred
eric
k C
ount
y‐106
‐166
‐366
‐376
‐306
‐216
‐66
‐36
134
294
Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
3‐207
‐1,307
‐1,687
‐1,647
‐1,037
2398
32,06
32,87
3P
rince
Geo
rge'
s C
ount
y‐1,117
‐2,867
‐4,187
‐5,177
‐5,887
‐5,797
‐5,487
‐4,997
‐4,267
‐3,767
SOU
THER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
‐4‐254
‐624
‐434
‐634
‐374
136
196
616
1,00
6C
alve
rt C
ount
y‐152
‐242
‐382
‐402
‐442
‐442
‐412
‐502
‐542
‐522
Cha
rles
Cou
nty
7535
‐185
‐85
‐205
‐135
205
225
435
665
St.
Mar
y's
Cou
nty
73‐47
‐57
5313
203
343
473
723
863
WES
TER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
‐143
‐203
‐153
‐123
‐113
‐93
5757
147
377
Alle
gany
Cou
nty
‐70
‐80
‐140
‐150
‐180
‐210
‐190
‐200
‐250
‐240
Gar
rett
Cou
nty
‐102
‐152
‐172
‐192
‐192
‐232
‐222
‐222
‐212
‐212
Was
hing
ton
Cou
nty
2929
159
219
259
349
469
479
609
829
UPP
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N‐235
‐465
‐595
‐525
‐475
‐75
195
255
515
765
Car
olin
e C
ount
y‐30
‐70
‐120
‐120
‐90
‐30
2040
100
220
Cec
il C
ount
y‐115
‐205
‐265
‐245
‐225
‐115
515
5514
5K
ent C
ount
y1
‐39
‐59
‐29
‐59
‐59
‐59
‐79
‐49
‐9Q
ueen
Ann
e's
Cou
nty
‐36
‐96
‐56
‐46
‐36
114
164
224
324
344
Talb
ot C
ount
y‐55
‐55
‐95
‐85
‐65
1565
5585
65
LOW
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N‐171
‐501
‐561
‐581
‐371
‐281
‐41
299
109
Dor
ches
ter C
ount
y30
‐40
‐60
‐60
‐30
‐10
7011
090
170
Som
erse
t Cou
nty
‐73
‐133
‐153
‐153
‐113
‐83
‐73
‐13
‐23
7W
icom
ico
Cou
nty
‐122
‐292
‐362
‐382
‐292
‐202
‐52
‐72
‐62
‐62
Wor
cest
er C
ount
y‐6
‐36
1414
6414
144
4‐6
* E
nrol
lmen
t num
bers
in b
old
indi
cate
yea
rs in
whi
ch e
nrol
lmen
t will
pea
k. D
ue to
roun
ding
, pro
ject
ed e
nrol
lmen
ts m
ay n
ot a
dd u
p ex
actly
to S
tate
tota
ls.
Sou
rce:
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion,
"Sta
tistic
s on
Enr
ollm
ent a
nd N
umbe
r of S
choo
ls P
ublic
and
Non
-Pub
lic, 2
010.
"P
repa
red
by th
e M
aryl
and
Dep
artm
ent o
f Pla
nnin
g, P
roje
ctio
ns a
nd D
ata
Ana
lysi
s/S
tate
Dat
a C
ente
r, 2
011
to 2
020.
Attachment - Question 14C
TAB
LE 1
5. C
UM
ULA
TIVE
PER
CEN
T C
HA
NG
E IN
PU
BLI
C H
IGH
SC
HO
OL
ENR
OLL
MEN
T (G
RA
DES
9-1
2) F
RO
M A
CTU
AL
2010
, BY
JUR
ISD
ICTI
ON
*
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
2010
-20
10-
STA
TE/R
EGIO
N/J
UR
ISD
ICTI
ON
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MA
RYL
AN
D‐1.1%
‐2.8%
‐5.0%
‐5.5%
‐5.6%
‐4.7%
‐3.1%
‐1.8%
‐0.1%
1.4%
BA
LTIM
OR
E R
EGIO
N‐1.1%
‐2.4%
‐4.6%
‐4.8%
‐4.6%
‐4.0%
‐2.5%
‐1.0%
0.4%
1.7%
Ann
e A
rund
el C
ount
y0.3%
‐0.6%
‐1.8%
‐1.7%
‐1.4%
‐0.5%
1.2%
2.9%
3.1%
3.5%
Bal
timor
e C
ount
y‐2.3%
‐4.3%
‐6.0%
‐7.0%
‐7.1%
‐6.5%
‐5.3%
‐2.5%
0.2%
2.6%
Car
roll
Cou
nty
‐2.7%
‐4.5%
‐6.8%
‐7.2%
‐7.4%
‐7.3%
‐6.7%
‐6.3%
‐5.7%
‐5.8%
Har
ford
Cou
nty
‐0.1%
‐0.7%
‐3.2%
‐3.2%
‐4.8%
‐4.2%
‐3.8%
‐3.9%
‐1.8%
‐0.7%
How
ard
Cou
nty
‐0.2%
‐0.5%
‐3.8%
‐3.6%
‐2.9%
‐2.0%
1.4%
3.2%
3.4%
2.4%
Bal
timor
e C
ity‐1.3%
‐3.1%
‐5.8%
‐5.6%
‐4.4%
‐3.8%
‐2.9%
‐2.1%
‐0.4%
2.3%
SUB
UR
BA
N W
ASH
ING
TON
REG
ION
‐1.3%
‐3.3%
‐6.0%
‐7.4%
‐8.1%
‐7.2%
‐5.7%
‐4.2%
‐2.1%
‐0.6%
Fred
eric
k C
ount
y‐0.8%
‐1.3%
‐2.9%
‐3.0%
‐2.4%
‐1.7%
‐0.5%
‐0.3%
1.1%
2.3%
Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
0.0%
‐0.5%
‐2.9%
‐3.7%
‐3.6%
‐2.3%
0.1%
2.2%
4.6%
6.3%
Prin
ce G
eorg
e's
Cou
nty
‐2.8%
‐7.3%
‐10.6%
‐13.2%
‐15.0%
‐14.7%
‐13.9%
‐12.7%
‐10.8%
‐9.6%
SOU
THER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
0.0%
‐1.3%
‐3.1%
‐2.2%
‐3.2%
‐1.9%
0.7%
1.0%
3.1%
5.0%
Cal
vert
Cou
nty
‐2.7%
‐4.3%
‐6.7%
‐7.1%
‐7.8%
‐7.8%
‐7.3%
‐8.9%
‐9.6%
‐9.2%
Cha
rles
Cou
nty
0.8%
0.4%
‐2.0%
‐0.9%
‐2.2%
‐1.5%
2.2%
2.4%
4.7%
7.2%
St.
Mar
y's
Cou
nty
1.4%
‐0.9%
‐1.1%
1.0%
0.3%
3.9%
6.6%
9.1%
14.0%
16.7%
WES
TER
N M
AR
YLA
ND
REG
ION
‐1.3%
‐1.9%
‐1.4%
‐1.2%
‐1.1%
‐0.9%
0.5%
0.5%
1.4%
3.5%
Alle
gany
Cou
nty
‐2.6%
‐3.0%
‐5.2%
‐5.5%
‐6.6%
‐7.7%
‐7.0%
‐7.4%
‐9.2%
‐8.9%
Gar
rett
Cou
nty
‐7.4%
‐11.1%
‐12.5%
‐14.0%
‐14.0%
‐16.9%
‐16.2%
‐16.2%
‐15.5%
‐15.5%
Was
hing
ton
Cou
nty
0.4%
0.4%
2.4%
3.3%
3.9%
5.3%
7.1%
7.3%
9.2%
12.6%
UPP
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N‐2.1%
‐4.2%
‐5.4%
‐4.8%
‐4.3%
‐0.7%
1.8%
2.3%
4.7%
7.0%
Car
olin
e C
ount
y‐1.9%
‐4.4%
‐7.5%
‐7.5%
‐5.7%
‐1.9%
1.3%
2.5%
6.3%
13.8%
Cec
il C
ount
y‐2.3%
‐4.2%
‐5.4%
‐5.0%
‐4.6%
‐2.3%
0.1%
0.3%
1.1%
3.0%
Ken
t Cou
nty
0.2%
‐6.1%
‐9.2%
‐4.5%
‐9.2%
‐9.2%
‐9.2%
‐12.4%
‐7.7%
‐1.4%
Que
en A
nne'
s C
ount
y‐1.5%
‐3.9%
‐2.3%
‐1.9%
‐1.5%
4.7%
6.7%
9.2%
13.2%
14.1%
Talb
ot C
ount
y‐3.9%
‐3.9%
‐6.7%
‐6.0%
‐4.6%
1.1%
4.6%
3.9%
6.0%
4.6%
LOW
ER E
AST
ERN
SH
OR
E R
EGIO
N‐2.1%
‐6.0%
‐6.8%
‐7.0%
‐4.5%
‐3.4%
‐0.5%
0.3%
0.1%
1.3%
Dor
ches
ter C
ount
y2.2%
‐2.9%
‐4.4%
‐4.4%
‐2.2%
‐0.7%
5.1%
8.1%
6.6%
12.5%
Som
erse
t Cou
nty
‐9.1%
‐16.6%
‐19.1%
‐19.1%
‐14.1%
‐10.3%
‐9.1%
‐1.6%
‐2.9%
0.9%
Wic
omic
o C
ount
y‐3.0%
‐7.3%
‐9.0%
‐9.5%
‐7.3%
‐5.0%
‐1.3%
‐1.8%
‐1.5%
‐1.5%
Wor
cest
er C
ount
y‐0.3%
‐1.7%
0.7%
0.7%
3.0%
0.7%
0.7%
0.2%
0.2%
‐0.3%
* E
nrol
lmen
t num
bers
in b
old
indi
cate
yea
rs in
whi
ch e
nrol
lmen
t will
pea
k.
Sou
rce:
Mar
ylan
d D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion,
"Sta
tistic
s on
Enr
ollm
ent a
nd N
umbe
r of S
choo
ls P
ublic
and
Non
-Pub
lic, 2
010.
"P
repa
red
by th
e M
aryl
and
Dep
artm
ent o
f Pla
nnin
g, P
roje
ctio
ns a
nd D
ata
Ana
lysi
s/S
tate
Dat
a C
ente
r, 2
011
to 2
020.
Attachment - Question 14C
METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in preparing the enrollment projections involves an explicit effort to use the Maryland Department of Planning’s latest age‐specific population projections (November, 2010) for each political subdivision to guide the selection of key parameters used to develop grade‐specific school enrollment projections. Thus, the age‐specific population projections provide a starting point for deriving the public school enrollment projections.
Population Projections
Age‐specific population projections for each jurisdiction are used to assist in estimating the
following parameters relevant to the school enrollment projections: 1. The projected school age population (5‐17 years old); and 2. Projected live births.
The historical relationship between the school age population (5‐17 year olds) and total
persons enrolled in school (both public and private) from both the 1990 and 2000 censuses is used in conjunction with the projected school age population to project a range of total school enrollment for each jurisdiction. The historical relationship between total (includes both public and private school enrollment) and public school enrollment is then combined with projected total school enrollment to derive a range of estimates of the projected public school enrollment for each jurisdiction. The range (high, middle and low) of projections of public school enrollment based on projected school age population are subsequently used as a guide in selecting the assumptions for the public school enrollment projections derived by the grade succession methodology. Grade Succession Projections
The grade succession methodology requires historical data for each political subdivision on the number of live births and the number of children enrolled in public schools by grade. For the purpose of these projections, historical birth data for the years 1970‐2009 and historical school enrollment data for the period 1975‐2010 are examined.1 The historical data are then combined with data on projected births and the expected relationship between projected births and kindergarten as well as first‐grade enrollment.
With the phase in of older age‐eligibility requirements for kindergarten beginning with school
year 2003 (and first grade for school year 2004), historic birth data by month was used, starting with calendar year 1998, to derive “kindergarten‐eligible births” five years hence. Students entering kindergarten in the fall of 2003 must have been age five by November 30, 2003. Age eligibility was raised in the three successive years until the 2006 school year, when students entering kindergarten
1 Birth data are from the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Since 1991, these data have been derived by geocoding the birth mother’s address to the jurisdiction of residence.
Attachment - Question 14C
Demographic Data
133
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.
Attachment - Question 14D
134
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY TEN YEAR HISTORIC ENROLLMENT
Sept 30, Sept 30, Sept 30, Sept 30, Sept 30, Sept 30, Sept 30, Sept 30, Sept 30, Sept 30, Sept 30,
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
Attachment - Question 14D
135
Public School Historical Enrollments 2000-2010
Attachment - Question 14D
Section 6
136
Non-Public School Enrollments From 2000 through 2005, non-public school enrollments in Prince George’s County hovered between 22,000 and 24,000 students. A decline in total enrollment was observed in 2006 and continued in 2007. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, participation in the voluntary reporting system for non-public school enrollment dropped sufficiently to invalidate those years as the basis for any meaningful comparison. Of the 180 non-public schools operating in Prince George’s County as of September, 2010, fewer than two of every three schools (110 of 180) provided enrollment date requested by MSDE. The non-public school enrollment trend observed in Prince George’s County was also evident across the State of Maryland as a whole. Relative stable non-public school enrollments were observed from 2000 through 2005 and were followed by declines in 2006 and 2007. As with Prince George’s County, the significant drop in participation in the MSDE survey of non-public enrollments limits the usefulness of the available data for comparison purposes. For the 2010-2011 school year, there are currently approximately 2,200 students being home schooled in Prince George’s County. Reportedly this number has been increasing but overall remains at a modest level. Projected Public School Enrollment Grade K to 12 public school enrollments in Prince George’s County are expected to continue to decline for the first five years of this decade. The observed enrollment in 2010 was higher than expected but nonetheless represented a decline of approximately 650 pupils from the previous year. MSDE has made some adjustments in the projections for Prince George’s County and moderated the declines anticipated in the next few years. In 2015, the decline in enrollment is expected to be reversed and the County is expected to experience a series of enrollment increases to end the decade. The net effect of these decreases and increases in enrollment is expected to have the County’s K-12 enrollment approximately 800 students higher than today’s enrollment level. PreK enrollment is expected to continue at approximately the same level but the impact on enrollment of a return to a half-day program for the 2011-2012 school year is uncertain.
Attachment - Question 14D
Demographic Data
137
The enrollment trend differs dramatically by education level. For public school enrollment in grades K to 5, the county is expected to experience increases for the next five years followed by five years of modest declines. At the end of the forecast period, enrollment in Grades K to 5 is expected to be almost 2,800 students higher than today. At the middle school level (grades 6-8), enrollments are expected to decline for the next two years and be followed by seven years of modest growth before declining again at the end of the forecast period. Enrollment levels at the end of the period is expected to be about 1,750 students higher than today.
At the high school level, five years of additional declines in public school enrollment are anticipated. This is expected to result in a low enrollment of approximately 33,450 students in 2015. Modest increases in Grade 9-12 enrollment are expected to end the decade but enrollment at that time is expected to be about 3,750 students lower than today.
Attachment - Question 14D
Section 6
138
A chart showing the cumulative enrollment changes by grade ranges is provided to complement the charts showing the expected annual change by grade range. See the next page for Public School Enrollment Historical 2010 and Projected 2011-2020 data. As the school system moves ahead with Secondary School Reform, it is anticipated that enrollments in middle and high schools will increase as programmatic offerings draw students from outside the system and improvements are made in retaining current students, reducing ninth grade retention, reducing dropout rates and increasing graduation rates. Starting on page 140 are actual enrollments and seven-year projected enrollments for the school system as a whole and individual schools by grade level for September 30th of each year from 2010 to 2017.
Attachment - Question 14D
FY-2012 Lease Purchase Items
with Energy Management
Attachment - Question 18
Description
Fiscal
Year Term Original Principal Interest Rate
Current Remaining
Principal as of 6/30/12
Current Remaining
Principal as of 6/30/13
*FY13 Estimated
Payment Location in Budget
Energy Performance Management
Project FY08 13 yr 34,623,272$ 3.99% 22,461,517$ 20,022,948$ 3,334,783$ Maintenance
34,623,272$ 22,461,517$ 20,022,948$ 3,334,783$ Textbooks FY09 5 yr 10,200,000$ 4.10% 2,120,940$ -$ 2,207,898$ Textbook Office
10,200,000$ 2,120,940$ -$ 2,207,898$
Non-Bus Vehicles FY10 5 yr 1,575,000$ 4.50% 651,528$ 332,932$ 359,955$ Transportation-Central Garage
Replacement Buses FY10 5 yr 12,004,240$ 4.50% 4,965,775$ 2,537,523$ 2,639,671$ Transportation- Bus Lot OperationsTextbooks FY10 5 yr 8,200,000$ 4.50% 3,392,081$ 1,733,362$ 1,811,363$ Textbook Office
21,779,240$ 9,009,385$ 4,603,818$ 4,810,989$
Replacement Buses FY11 5 yr 12,336,598$ 2.89% 7,410,256$ 5,010,201$ 2,623,281$ Transportation- Bus Lot Operations
Non-Bus Vehicles FY11 5 yr 1,575,000$ 2.89% 946,059$ 639,647$ 334,911$ Transportation-Central Garage
Computer Refresh - Instructional FY11 5 yr 7,500,000$ 2.89% 4,505,044$ 3,045,937$ 1,594,817$ Technology RefreshComputer Refresh - Non-Instructional FY11 5 yr 2,500,000$ 2.89% 1,501,681$ 1,015,312$ 531,606$ Technology Refresh
23,911,598$ 14,363,041$ 9,711,097$ 5,084,615$
Energy Performance Management
Project - PEPCO FY11 13 yr 34,905,116$ 4.40% 31,001,517$ 29,556,055$ 3,114,626$ Maintenance
34,905,116$ 31,001,517$ 29,556,055$ 3,114,626$
Energy Performance Management
Project - Johnson Control FY11 16 yr 35,328,488$ 4.38% 33,726,924$ 32,089,537$ 5,279,530$ Maintenance
35,328,488$ 33,726,924$ 32,089,537$ 5,279,530$
Replacement Buses FY12 5 yr 14,798,935$ 1.12% 11,775,947$ 8,880,823$ 3,026,662$ Transportation- Bus Lot Operations
Non-Bus Vehicles FY12 5 yr 1,575,000$ 1.12% 1,253,274$ 945,156$ 322,117$ Transportation-Central Garage
Plant Op - Equipment FY12 5 yr 1,871,351$ 1.12% 1,489,089$ 1,122,995$ 382,727$ Plant Operations
Computer Refresh - Instructional FY12 5 yr 9,800,000$ 1.12% 7,798,148$ 5,880,968$ 2,004,285$ Technology RefreshComputer Refresh - Non-Instructional FY12 5 yr 2,500,000$ 1.12% 1,989,323$ 1,500,247$ 511,297$ Technology Refresh
30,545,286$ 24,305,781$ 18,330,189$ 6,247,088$
Computer Refresh - Instructional FY13 5 yr 6,000,000$ 4.00% -$ 4,704,074$ 1,295,926$ Technology Refresh
6,000,000$ -$ 4,704,074$ 1,295,926$
Bus Radios FY13 5 yr 4,000,000$ 1.69% -$ 3,172,964$ 863,950$ Transportation- Bus Lot Operations
4,000,000$ -$ 3,172,964$ 863,950$
201,293,000$ 136,989,105$ 122,190,682$ 32,239,405$
Energy Management Sub-Total
Energy Management Sub-Total
FY-09 Lease Purchase Sub-Total
FY-10 Lease Purchase Sub-Total
FY-11 Lease Purchase Sub-Total
Energy Management Sub-Total
FY-12 Lease Purchase Sub-Total
FY-13 Lease Purchase Sub-Total
FY-13 Lease Purchase Sub-Total
Grand Total L/P
Prince Geroge's County Public Schools
SY2011-2012 Official Enrollment by School and Grade
School Name GR_K GR01 GR02 GR03 GR04 GR05 GR06 GR07 GR08 GR09 GR10 GR11 GR12 SUBTOTAL PreK PUPILS
ACADEMY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AT PGCC - - - - - - - - - 100 - - - 100 - 100
ACCOKEEK ACADEMY 79 78 101 102 90 103 187 238 225 - - - - 1,203 34 1,237
ADELPHI ELEMENTARY 100 96 90 80 79 60 60 - - - - - - 565 38 603
ALLENWOOD ELEMENTARY 54 58 42 59 50 61 58 - - - - - - 382 - 382
ANDREW JACKSON ACADEMY 50 62 54 52 47 49 65 74 62 - - - - 515 - 515
ANNAPOLIS ROAD ACADEMY - - - - - - - - - 54 38 2 - 94 - 94
APPLE GROVE ELEMENTARY 64 73 62 41 56 71 61 - - - - - - 428 23 451
ARDMORE ELEMENTARY 58 79 58 55 83 66 78 - - - - - - 477 37 514
ARROWHEAD ELEMENTARY 50 51 67 60 71 70 66 - - - - - - 435 - 435
AVALON ELEMENTARY 44 42 56 43 54 48 54 - - - - - - 341 - 341
BADEN ELEMENTARY 36 44 28 37 24 30 36 - - - - - - 235 39 274
BARACK OBAMA ELEMENTARY 100 101 112 116 117 119 107 - - - - - - 772 11 783
BARNABY MANOR ELEMENTARY 72 68 67 73 82 69 - - - - - - - 431 62 493
BEACON HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 66 57 58 63 47 46 44 - - - - - - 381 38 419
BELTSVILLE ACADEMY 105 113 92 109 89 85 102 107 155 - - - - 957 40 997
BENJAMIN D FOULOIS ACADEMY 50 50 50 49 53 53 81 86 81 - - - - 553 - 553
BENJAMIN STODDERT MIDDLE - - - - - - 202 197 233 - - - - 632 - 632
BENJAMIN TASKER MIDDLE - - - - - - 282 302 347 - - - - 931 - 931
BERWYN HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 79 67 62 70 59 66 57 - - - - - - 460 20 480
BLADENSBURG ELEMENTARY 101 90 95 98 84 91 60 - - - - - - 619 78 697
BLADENSBURG HIGH - - - - - - - - - 656 456 393 327 1,832 - 1,832
BOND MILL ELEMENTARY 87 68 83 68 75 78 - - - - - - - 459 - 459
BOWIE HIGH - - - - - - - - - 753 721 717 645 2,836 - 2,836
BRADBURY HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 65 53 62 55 77 75 88 - - - - - - 475 64 539
BRANDYWINE ELEMENTARY 89 86 83 80 114 86 - - - - - - - 538 16 554
BUCK LODGE MIDDLE - - - - - - 73 385 407 - - - - 865 - 865
C ELIZABETH RIEG 6 9 6 5 5 8 6 2 5 19 3 11 10 95 - 95
CALVERTON ELEMENTARY 156 112 123 112 127 102 - - - - - - - 732 39 771
CAPITOL HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 25 17 37 33 44 40 36 - - - - - - 232 29 261
CARMODY HILLS ELEMENTARY 61 47 46 39 38 57 41 - - - - - - 329 38 367
CAROLE HIGHLANDS ELEMENTARY 109 100 101 94 82 63 68 - - - - - - 617 73 690
CARROLLTON ELEMENTARY 94 97 69 90 72 81 - - - - - - - 503 96 599
CATHERINE T REED ELEMENTARY 68 71 79 64 64 63 - - - - - - - 409 18 427
CENTRAL HIGH - - - - - - - - - 321 185 217 182 905 - 905
CESAR CHAVEZ ELEMENTARY 42 29 45 30 31 32 37 - - - - - - 246 12 258
CHAPEL FORGE E C C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 188 188
CHARLES CARROLL MIDDLE - - - - - - 130 397 356 - - - - 883 - 883
CHARLES HERBERT FLOWERS HIGH - - - - - - - - - 715 534 567 537 2,353 - 2,353
CHEROKEE LANE ELEMENTARY 66 64 67 66 61 47 55 - - - - - - 426 - 426
CHESAPEAKE MATH AND IT - - - - - - 147 148 - - - - - 295 - 295
CHILLUM ELEMENTARY 35 36 39 52 42 39 42 - - - - - - 285 45 330
CLINTON GROVE ELEMENTARY 42 48 61 48 51 57 50 - - - - - - 357 12 369
COLUMBIA PARK ELEMENTARY 70 64 47 44 66 55 75 - - - - - - 421 38 459
COMMUNITY-BASED CLASSROOM - - - - - - - - - - 9 17 100 126 - 126
CONCORD ELEMENTARY 52 48 35 39 33 45 47 - - - - - - 299 22 321
COOL SPRING ELEMENTARY 102 88 76 62 69 68 56 - - - - - - 521 131 652
rev 12-09-2012
prepared by
Pupil Accounting & School Boundaries Page 1 of 5
Attachment - Question 32
Prince Geroge's County Public Schools
SY2011-2012 Official Enrollment by School and Grade
School Name GR_K GR01 GR02 GR03 GR04 GR05 GR06 GR07 GR08 GR09 GR10 GR11 GR12 SUBTOTAL PreK PUPILS
COOPER LANE ELEMENTARY 53 65 58 54 68 40 60 - - - - - - 398 40 438
CORA L RICE ELEMENTARY 69 72 85 91 72 74 71 - - - - - - 534 50 584
CROOM VOCATIONAL HIGH - - - - - - - - - - - 17 62 79 - 79
CROSSLAND EVENING/SAT HIGH - - - - - - - - - 23 31 8 94 156 - 156
CROSSLAND HIGH - - - - - - - - - 474 314 268 284 1,340 - 1,340
DEERFIELD RUN ELEMENTARY 90 86 89 71 89 76 77 - - - - - - 578 34 612
DISTRICT HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 73 60 55 58 57 63 53 - - - - - - 419 41 460
DODGE PARK ELEMENTARY 72 103 69 62 72 51 57 - - - - - - 486 36 522
DOSWELL E BROOKS ELEMENTARY 31 38 30 34 28 31 32 - - - - - - 224 - 224
DR HENRY A WISE JR HIGH - - - - - - - - - 767 661 480 576 2,484 - 2,484
DREW-FREEMAN MIDDLE - - - - - - - 322 332 - - - - 654 - 654
DUVAL HIGH - - - - - - - - - 537 465 326 320 1,648 - 1,648
DWIGHT D EISENHOWER MIDDLE - - - - - - - 325 377 - - - - 702 - 702
ELEANOR ROOSEVELT HIGH - - - - - - - - - 688 646 601 616 2,551 - 2,551
ERNEST EVERETT JUST MIDDLE - - - - - - - 361 387 - - - - 748 - 748
EXCEL ACADEMY PUBLIC CHARTER 29 40 37 39 45 48 40 25 28 - - - - 331 - 331
FAIRMONT HEIGHTS HIGH - - - - - - - - - 280 160 152 160 752 - 752
FLINTSTONE ELEMENTARY 48 54 57 34 47 49 46 - - - - - - 335 16 351
FOREST HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 36 30 40 31 28 29 29 - - - - - - 223 26 249
FORESTVILLE HIGH - - - - - - - - - 272 186 176 104 738 - 738
FORT FOOTE ELEMENTARY 37 47 44 52 40 44 43 - - - - - - 307 67 374
FORT WASHINGTON FOREST ELEM 37 29 40 43 52 52 - - - - - - - 253 - 253
FRANCES R FUCHS E C C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 280 280
FRANCIS SCOTT KEY ELEMENTARY 68 67 66 80 83 64 63 - - - - - - 491 30 521
FRANCIS T EVANS ELEMENTARY 59 55 70 50 64 83 - - - - - - - 381 39 420
FREDERICK DOUGLASS HIGH - - - - - - - - - 349 281 220 235 1,085 - 1,085
FRIENDLY HIGH - - - - - - - - - 384 272 300 332 1,288 - 1,288
G JAMES GHOLSON MIDDLE - - - - - - - 363 352 - - - - 715 - 715
GAYWOOD ELEMENTARY 67 74 75 65 69 60 - - - - - - - 410 34 444
GLADYS NOON SPELLMAN ELEMENTARY 81 89 80 67 74 69 78 - - - - - - 538 - 538
GLASSMANOR ELEMENTARY 29 30 42 38 24 34 30 - - - - - - 227 12 239
GLENARDEN WOODS ELEMENTARY 31 37 79 84 77 85 79 - - - - - - 472 - 472
GLENN DALE ELEMENTARY 83 76 90 70 70 70 - - - - - - - 459 - 459
GLENRIDGE ELEMENTARY 111 135 96 91 94 78 107 - - - - - - 712 40 752
GREEN VALLEY ACADEMY - - - - - - 2 1 6 70 32 - - 111 - 111
GREENBELT DAY CARE CENTER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 20
GREENBELT ELEMENTARY 88 96 80 73 99 76 74 - - - - - - 586 35 621
GREENBELT MIDDLE - - - - - - 81 275 304 - - - - 660 - 660
GWYNN PARK HIGH - - - - - - - - - 341 295 257 243 1,136 - 1,136
GWYNN PARK MIDDLE - - - - - - 125 214 254 - - - - 593 - 593
H WINSHIP WHEATLEY E C C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 354 354
HEATHER HILLS ELEMENTARY 22 21 63 73 70 65 63 - - - - - - 377 - 377
HIGH BRIDGE ELEMENTARY 66 68 66 71 79 68 - - - - - - - 418 - 418
HIGH POINT HIGH - - - - - - - - - 780 539 478 361 2,158 - 2,158
HIGHLAND PARK ELEMENTARY 25 13 14 17 21 16 23 - - - - - - 129 49 178
HILLCREST HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 72 57 69 71 77 81 - - - - - - - 427 39 466
rev 12-09-2012
prepared by
Pupil Accounting & School Boundaries Page 2 of 5
Attachment - Question 32
Prince Geroge's County Public Schools
SY2011-2012 Official Enrollment by School and Grade
School Name GR_K GR01 GR02 GR03 GR04 GR05 GR06 GR07 GR08 GR09 GR10 GR11 GR12 SUBTOTAL PreK PUPILS
HOLLYWOOD ELEMENTARY 74 52 76 65 55 55 39 - - - - - - 416 38 454
HYATTSVILLE ELEMENTARY 89 79 70 63 75 55 66 - - - - - - 497 16 513
HYATTSVILLE MIDDLE - - - - - - - 350 323 - - - - 673 - 673
IMAGINE ANDREWS 59 50 53 51 52 - - - - - - - - 265 - 265
IMAGINE FOUNDATION II 101 98 49 - - - - - - - - - - 248 - 248
IMAGINE FOUNDATIONS PUBLIC CHARTER 52 51 51 50 53 52 49 30 - - - - - 388 - 388
IMAGINE LINCOLN PUBLIC CHARTER 47 53 56 56 61 53 55 60 27 - - - - 468 - 468
INCARCERATED YOUTH CENTER (JACS) - - - - - - - - - 4 9 8 5 26 - 26
INDIAN QUEEN ELEMENTARY 41 46 50 40 47 38 45 - - - - - - 307 - 307
ISAAC J GOURDINE MIDDLE - - - - - - 60 230 261 - - - - 551 - 551
J FRANK DENT ELEMENTARY 42 32 34 38 39 35 30 - - - - - - 250 - 250
JAMES E DUCKWORTH 11 5 4 4 9 3 7 4 12 9 6 8 2 84 - 84
JAMES H HARRISON ELEMENTARY 51 40 36 33 45 40 32 - - - - - - 277 33 310
JAMES MADISON MIDDLE - - - - - - - 386 497 - - - - 883 - 883
JAMES MC HENRY ELEMENTARY 120 120 108 79 88 79 - - - - - - - 594 92 686
JAMES RYDER RANDALL ELEMENTARY 37 39 46 51 44 36 53 - - - - - - 306 121 427
JOHN H BAYNE ELEMENTARY 55 58 69 52 52 76 59 - - - - - - 421 39 460
JOHN HANSON FRENCH IMMERSION 70 62 58 48 37 39 36 38 30 - - - - 418 - 418
JOHN HANSON MONTESSORI 46 48 42 45 41 39 34 27 33 - - - - 355 108 463
JUDGE SYLVANIA W WOODS SR ELEM 83 83 64 70 71 69 100 - - - - - - 540 71 611
JUDITH P HOYER MONTESSORI 23 22 13 12 16 5 5 - - - - - - 96 83 179
KENILWORTH ELEMENTARY 58 76 63 55 73 61 - - - - - - - 386 - 386
KENMOOR ELEMENTARY 41 49 50 52 67 51 69 - - - - - - 379 30 409
KENMOOR MIDDLE - - - - - - - 326 350 - - - - 676 - 676
KETTERING ELEMENTARY 58 39 38 57 56 56 - - - - - - - 304 23 327
KETTERING MIDDLE - - - - - - 115 195 233 - - - - 543 - 543
KINGSFORD ELEMENTARY 67 92 108 122 103 104 101 - - - - - - 697 35 732
LAKE ARBOR ELEMENTARY 94 77 101 104 107 96 125 - - - - - - 704 36 740
LAMONT ELEMENTARY 87 97 80 83 87 75 - - - - - - - 509 75 584
LANGLEY PK- MCCORMICK ELEMENTARY 130 89 74 69 55 46 45 - - - - - - 508 107 615
LARGO HIGH - - - - - - - - - 359 285 260 261 1,165 - 1,165
LAUREL ELEMENTARY 101 92 87 67 63 85 52 - - - - - - 547 39 586
LAUREL HIGH - - - - - - - - - 614 421 382 410 1,827 - 1,827
LEWISDALE ELEMENTARY 128 105 104 90 87 73 - - - - - - - 587 80 667
LONGFIELDS ELEMENTARY 37 34 60 65 58 53 66 - - - - - - 373 31 404
MAGNOLIA ELEMENTARY 63 75 57 63 64 56 69 - - - - - - 447 32 479
MARGARET BRENT 12 9 11 8 9 10 7 8 7 11 4 9 3 108 - 108
MARLTON ELEMENTARY 46 61 56 60 54 65 64 - - - - - - 406 23 429
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR MIDDLE - - - - - - 197 201 227 - - - - 625 - 625
MARY HARRIS "MOTHER" JONES ELEM 156 122 109 101 112 95 79 - - - - - - 774 80 854
MATTAPONI ELEMENTARY 47 46 62 58 56 56 64 - - - - - - 389 - 389
MELWOOD ELEMENTARY 54 61 51 70 78 67 78 - - - - - - 459 - 459
MONTPELIER ELEMENTARY 78 102 84 99 82 96 72 - - - - - - 613 37 650
MT RAINIER ELEMENTARY 53 55 45 48 52 45 43 - - - - - - 341 38 379
NICHOLAS OREM MIDDLE - - - - - - 78 303 276 - - - - 657 - 657
NORTH FORESTVILLE ELEMENTARY 36 42 38 52 48 54 51 - - - - - - 321 20 341
rev 12-09-2012
prepared by
Pupil Accounting & School Boundaries Page 3 of 5
Attachment - Question 32
Prince Geroge's County Public Schools
SY2011-2012 Official Enrollment by School and Grade
School Name GR_K GR01 GR02 GR03 GR04 GR05 GR06 GR07 GR08 GR09 GR10 GR11 GR12 SUBTOTAL PreK PUPILS
NORTHVIEW ELEMENTARY 115 134 134 114 125 143 - - - - - - - 765 35 800
NORTHWESTERN EVENING/SAT HIGH - - - - - - - - - 31 27 19 73 150 - 150
NORTHWESTERN HIGH - - - - - - - - - 770 603 440 461 2,274 - 2,274
OAKCREST ELEMENTARY 40 41 60 59 59 60 57 - - - - - - 376 28 404
OAKLANDS ELEMENTARY 62 63 55 54 49 40 52 - - - - - - 375 38 413
OVERLOOK ELEMENTARY 47 40 48 42 38 44 - - - - - - - 259 17 276
OXON HILL ELEMENTARY 60 50 40 37 52 54 47 - - - - - - 340 - 340
OXON HILL HIGH - - - - - - - - - 579 379 374 315 1,647 - 1,647
OXON HILL MIDDLE - - - - - - - 262 312 - - - - 574 - 574
PAINT BRANCH ELEMENTARY 63 62 44 48 40 33 54 - - - - - - 344 61 405
PANORAMA ELEMENTARY 62 50 53 75 51 73 7 - - - - - - 371 33 404
PARKDALE HIGH - - - - - - - - - 663 594 490 425 2,172 - 2,172
PATUXENT ELEMENTARY 38 36 54 45 38 36 46 - - - - - - 293 19 312
PERRYWOOD ELEMENTARY 76 92 102 91 95 113 - - - - - - - 569 - 569
PHYLLIS E WILLIAMS ELEMENTARY 49 55 50 53 44 55 54 - - - - - - 360 - 360
POINTER RIDGE ELEMENTARY 64 74 82 84 71 75 - - - - - - - 450 - 450
PORT TOWNS ELEMENTARY 148 113 116 123 107 87 100 - - - - - - 794 108 902
POTOMAC HIGH - - - - - - - - - 392 205 214 268 1,079 - 1,079
POTOMAC LANDING ELEMENTARY 54 63 80 77 86 76 - - - - - - - 436 25 461
PRINCETON ELEMENTARY 52 52 49 56 58 59 48 - - - - - - 374 34 408
RIDGECREST ELEMENTARY 83 94 69 82 78 65 83 - - - - - - 554 115 669
RIVERDALE ELEMENTARY 127 117 111 105 116 73 36 - - - - - - 685 77 762
ROBERT FROST ELEMENTARY 33 39 54 44 43 33 35 - - - - - - 281 - 281
ROBERT GODDARD FRENCH IMMERSION 76 72 69 66 74 58 55 59 53 - - - - 582 - 582
ROBERT GODDARD MONTESSORI 53 52 46 54 46 44 43 38 40 - - - - 416 103 519
ROBERT R GRAY ELEMENTARY 55 59 40 48 40 51 46 - - - - - - 339 69 408
ROCKLEDGE ELEMENTARY 74 93 81 71 94 73 - - - - - - - 486 30 516
ROGERS HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 105 93 89 64 57 66 75 - - - - - - 549 40 589
ROSA L PARKS ELEMENTARY 119 127 86 90 82 76 104 - - - - - - 684 58 742
ROSARYVILLE ELEMENTARY 52 57 73 74 84 76 85 - - - - - - 501 31 532
ROSE VALLEY ELEMENTARY 62 42 39 52 54 44 54 - - - - - - 347 34 381
SAMUEL CHASE ELEMENTARY 52 47 52 40 59 36 - - - - - - - 286 30 316
SAMUEL OGLE MIDDLE - - - - - - 289 277 314 - - - - 880 - 880
SAMUEL P MASSIE ACADEMY 66 57 68 63 63 61 74 80 65 - - - - 597 61 658
SCOTCHTOWN HILLS ELEMENTARY 94 104 88 78 91 81 80 - - - - - - 616 58 674
SEABROOK ELEMENTARY 50 49 48 45 48 52 - - - - - - - 292 41 333
SEAT PLEASANT ELEMENTARY 57 49 44 40 37 41 33 - - - - - - 301 17 318
SKYLINE ELEMENTARY 35 29 24 38 33 35 43 - - - - - - 237 - 237
SPRINGHILL LAKE ELEMENTARY 115 98 106 92 85 89 - - - - - - - 585 - 585
STEPHEN DECATUR MIDDLE - - - - - - 53 258 303 - - - - 614 - 614
SUITLAND ELEMENTARY 73 53 73 61 76 80 78 - - - - - - 494 32 526
SUITLAND HIGH - - - - - - - - - 701 482 490 439 2,112 - 2,112
SURRATTSVILLE HIGH - - - - - - - - - 256 207 206 180 849 - 849
TALL OAKS VOCATIONAL - - - - - - - - - 1 8 35 69 113 - 113
TANGLEWOOD 2 3 5 4 2 4 7 2 6 - - - - 35 - 35
TAYAC ELEMENTARY 61 70 69 63 72 59 - - - - - - - 394 18 412
rev 12-09-2012
prepared by
Pupil Accounting & School Boundaries Page 4 of 5
Attachment - Question 32
Prince Geroge's County Public Schools
SY2011-2012 Official Enrollment by School and Grade
School Name GR_K GR01 GR02 GR03 GR04 GR05 GR06 GR07 GR08 GR09 GR10 GR11 GR12 SUBTOTAL PreK PUPILS
TEMPLETON ELEMENTARY 94 114 90 96 88 86 - - - - - - - 568 70 638
THOMAS CLAGGETT ELEMENTARY 39 36 27 27 33 26 32 - - - - - - 220 36 256
THOMAS G PULLEN 71 74 74 72 73 73 97 93 95 - - - - 722 - 722
THOMAS JOHNSON MIDDLE - - - - - - 322 297 312 - - - - 931 - 931
THOMAS S STONE ELEMENTARY 114 82 97 84 76 77 75 - - - - - - 605 79 684
THURGOOD MARSHALL MIDDLE - - - - - - 90 337 328 - - - - 755 - 755
TULIP GROVE ELEMENTARY 55 49 46 60 41 56 - - - - - - - 307 - 307
TURNING POINT ACADEMY 61 63 74 75 75 66 46 49 36 - - - - 545 - 545
UNIVERSITY PARK ELEMENTARY 95 87 94 89 89 81 90 - - - - - - 625 36 661
VALLEY VIEW ELEMENTARY 43 54 63 78 66 100 65 - - - - - - 469 31 500
VANSVILLE ELEMENTARY 130 132 146 114 109 136 - - - - - - - 767 58 825
WALDON WOODS ELEMENTARY 85 70 69 84 76 70 99 - - - - - - 553 24 577
WALKER MILL MIDDLE - - - - - - - 337 349 - - - - 686 - 686
WHITEHALL ELEMENTARY 70 77 74 76 81 86 - - - - - - - 464 - 464
WILLIAM BEANES ELEMENTARY 52 44 60 53 53 44 43 - - - - - - 349 38 387
WILLIAM PACA ELEMENTARY 72 59 67 47 76 50 62 - - - - - - 433 66 499
WILLIAM W HALL ACADEMY 64 48 49 63 47 55 58 63 75 - - - - 522 15 537
WILLIAM WIRT MIDDLE - - - - - - 120 340 345 - - - - 805 - 805
WOODMORE ELEMENTARY 68 60 54 64 72 72 24 - - - - - - 414 - 414
WOODRIDGE ELEMENTARY 48 50 35 40 29 32 36 - - - - - - 270 39 309
YORKTOWN ELEMENTARY 32 29 34 39 48 44 - - - - - - - 226 21 247
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 9,568 9,326 9,258 8,980 9,110 8,706 8,826 8,472 8,820 11,973 9,058 8,142 8,099 118,338 5,495 123,833
*Note: estimate of facility utilization based on full-time equilivant students
rev 12-09-2012
prepared by
Pupil Accounting & School Boundaries Page 5 of 5
Attachment - Question 32
Prince George's County Public Schools
Maintenance Department Projects
Attachment - Question 33
School/Site
County
Council
District
3DI Total
ScoreProject Description
Actual
Requirement
Baden ES 9 65.52 Cooling tower replacement $42,000
Bladensburg ES 5 24.52 Generator replacement $26,730
Charles Carroll MS 4 72.56 Replacement metal pan ceiling $104,756
Columbia Park ES 4 70.67 Refurbishment of building systems including
floors, ceilings, HVAC, stage floor, curtains,
bathroom partitions and parking lots
$724,998
Crossland HS 8 49.9 Replace metal pan ceiling $120,000
Drew Freeman 7 66.87 Science lab seating $125,000
DuVal HS 4 37.04 Replace gym floor $136,895
Forest Heights ES 8 68.49 Boiler replacement $203,000
Forest Heights ES 8 68.49 Replace metal pan ceiling $20,000
Forestville HS 7 31.63 Cooling tower replacement $112,864
Fort Foote ES 8 64.1 Replace prefab tech-fab panels $23,000
Friendly HS 9 49.73 Renovate two consumer science rooms $162,387
Gwynn Park HS 9 63.26 Replace acoustic ceiling tile and grid $150,000
Gwynn Park HS 9 63.26 Generator replacement $42,916
John Hanson Montessori 8 69.2 Replace gym floor $100,000
Largo HS 6 47.97 Cooling tower replacement $229,251
Oxon Hill MS 8 70.87 Cooling tower replacement $38,950
Parkdale HS 4 38.56 Boiler replacement $97,490
Pointer Ridge ES 4 65.67 Replace metal exterior building panels $125,000
Suitland HS 7 58.57 Boiler replacement $301,700
Thurgood Marshall 8 65.95 Replace wooden cabinets $153,326
Total FY 2012 Completed Projects $ 3,040,263
1
FUNDINGPROJECT I DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION REQUESTCounty and State FundedOxen Hill High Replacement(formerly HS No. 1)
Henry G. Ferguson Elementary
New Hyattsville Area Elementary
Fairmont Heights HighReplacement
This project will provide for a modern, state of-the ad educational facility for high school studentswith an overall sq. ft of 254, 878. The new school will be designed to meet changing programneeds, padicularly Jn the fieJd of Science and Technology. The design will further reflect thegrowing ro~e of computer technology in education and will seek to provide an environment in whichfuture changes in technology can be readily accommodated The Board of Education and theCounty approved a revised smaller school for a State Rated Capacib/of 1,200 seats. This wou~drepresent a smaller replacement school with no added seats Based on the State’s approval of theupdated Facility Assessment Study to support a replacement school, the 1,200 capacity schoo~ willinclude a state-of-the-art educational facility for Career Technology Educational Program, SpecialEducation, ESOL, and other educational programs In the PY20f2 CIP the State approved papalfunding for an enrollment of 602 students The gymnasium that was completed in 2003 will remainand be utilized upon completion of this project The design capacity for this school is 1,200studentsThis is one of the nine schools recommended for replacement in the May 8, 2008, updated Faci[gyAssessment Study. The study revealed a very high tecility condition index (FCl) for these schools.ranging from 75-84%, tedicating these schools to be in ,~]ery Poor, condSten The FCI for thisschool is 81 55% Prince George’s County efforts on re-boundarying and re purposing all newelementery schools with a gymnasium component, and other educational requirements to includeHeagh Room, Ubrary supporf rooms, such as Head End, ~/Studio and Contro~ Rooms: ScienceRooms, Special Educational. Computer Lab Voca~ and General Music, and Art This newelementary school will be part of the Accokeek Academy which combines Henry G. FergusonElementary School with Eugene Burroughs Middle School This proiect will replace the exisflngelementary school with a new state of-the-art "GREEN" school, for a State Rated Capacity of 464students.This project will provide for the tunding of a new elemen ary school in he Hya sv le area of theCounty. The Presbyterian Church site (3 9£-acre s re) was purchased by the Board of Education teOctober 2009 and approved by the Board ot Education he S a e Clear nghouse and the IAC wdh adesign cagacty for h s schoo of 792 students.
This school will be designed as a replacement school for a State Rated Capacity of 953 studentson a 29.9-acre site with overall sq ft. of 187,225. The Board of Education and the County Councilapproved a revised smalter school for a State Rated Capacgy of 953 seats This would represent areplacement school with no added seats. Sased on the State’s approval of the feasteility study tosupperf a replacement school, the 953 design capacity schoof will include a state-of-the-arteducational facility to supporf the Secondary School Reform initiative which will include anAcademy of Environmental Studies, Academy of Informa onal Technology Academy of PerformingArts, Wellness Cente, Special Educa fen, ESOL, and other educational programs. This projectincludes a 3.000 sq. ft (State approved 2,264) for Cooperative Use Space (Health Suite with
’ Wellness Center and increased size of theatre), PGCPS is in the process ot acquiring an additional(9) acres to supporf the educattenal program requ~remente.
With the odginal portions of Oxen Hill High Schooldating from ! 959. 1950, and 1962, more than 50percent of the facility is over 40 years old and hasnever been renovated Enrollment projections andexisting space requirements for the high schoolpopulation indicate a need for enlargement ot heex st ng high school while the condition of the facilitywarrants upgrading of systems, renovation of majorporfions, or complete replacement
This project is one of the nine schools recommendedfor replacement in the 3Dft PacilSy Assessment Study
Projected growth dictates the need for a new schoo~ ~i~ Ithe Hya[tsville Area
The replacement school scope is to be designed othe Stete’s High Performance Building guidelines toachieve a LEED Gold cerfiflcatiom te accordance withUnited States Green Building Counoit standards LEED2009 for schools new construction and majorrenovation project score cards
$10,565,000
$6,793,604
$6,500.000 !
$2,000,000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
PROJECTi Crossland High SchoolAuditorium
Eugene Burroughs MS (AccokeekAcademy)
Clinton Grove Elementary SpecialEducation Inclusion
Stephen Decatur Middle SpecialEducation inclusion
High Point High SpecialEducation Inclusion
DESCRIPTIONThis project will provide for an 800-seat auditorium including a back box theater stage, dressingrooms and other support spaces at Crossland High Schoo The addition wit/be of permanentconstruction, and witl be constructed as a separate additiot~ but tied into the existing school viacirculation lobby and corridor. This project will provide the educationa[ Jnstrucliona~ space that ispresently not part of the facility This project also includes road and infrastructure improvementsalong Temple Hill Road including utilifies, street lights curbs and sidewalks
Eugene Burroughs Middle Schoo] is a single-story, 126,286 sq. ft facility located on a 24.1-acresite close to 210 (Indian Head Highway) in Accokeek, MD The original building was constructed in1963, with additions constructed in 1965 and 1976 This school wilt be part of the AccokeekAcademy and will serve tilth grade though eighth grade This project will include major renovationsto the entire facility including the media center and instructional music The current SRC is 805State approval is required for a SRC of 782 for grades 5-8
The facility will be renovated te incorporate be h the speca educa on program equirements andimprove existing build ng condi ions that affect he de very of educational programs and ser~icesfor all students Clinton Grove Elementary School [s a 44379 sq. rt facility located on a 14-acresite in Clinton, MD The original buflding was constructed in 1955. with an addition in 1961 and1974. The September 2910 enrollment consists ol 356 students from pre-K through sixth grade. ASpart of the special education 1uture program and development pJan, this school is planned to berenovated, to house students from Tang]ewood SpeciaJ Center, with a special educationcomponent The proposed project will include the current SRC o1407 students plus the projected12fi SRC student capacity from Tanglewoed
The facilgy will be renovated to incorporate both the special education program requirements, andimprove exisfing building conditions that affect the delivery of educational programs and servicesfor all students. Stephen Decatur Middle School is a 120,070 sq. ff facility located on a 16.4-acresf[e in Clinton, MD. The edginal building was constructed in 1971 with an addition in 1994 TheSeptember 2010 enrogment consists of 627 suden s om sixth hrough eighth grade. As part ofthe special education future program and dove opment plan, his school is planned to be renovated(o house 49 56 s udents, grades 6-8 from the Oxen Hill M dd e School with a special educationcomponent The proposed school site will be a replication of our first school containing a RegionalProgram, Panorama Elementary ScheoLThe facility wgl be renovated to incorporate both the special education program requirements, andimprove existing building conditions that affect he de ve y of educational programs and servicesfor al students High Point High Scbeo~ is a 318.376 sq ft. facility located on a 38 8-acre site inBeltsvi}le. MD. The edginal building was constructed in 1954, with additions added in 1957, 19641967, and 1977 The September 20113 enrollment consists of 2218 students from ninth hroughtwelfth grade. As part of the special educa on future pr~jram and development plan. this school isp~anned to be renovated to house students from James E. Duckwodh Special Center, Wfth aspecial educafion component.
JUSTIFICATIONThe current facility has an inadequate auditorium. Anaddition to the curren~ school is warranted.
The results of the 2008 updated Facility AssessmentStudy revealed this school has an FCI of 72.45%which is considered to be "Fa6 Condition," butrequires major renovation and repairs to severalsystems The maior renovation scope is to bedesigned to the State’s High Performance Buildingguidelines ~0 achieve a LEED Go~d certification inaccordance with United States Green Building Councilstandards LEED 2059 for schools new constructionand maior renovation project score cards.
Clinton Grove Elementary School is a 44,379 sq. ftfaciJity located on a 137 acre site in Clinton MD. Theoriginal building was cons ucted in 1955, with anaddition in 1961 and 1974. The September 2010enrollment consists of 386 students from pre-Nthrough sixth grade. As part of the specia( educationfuture program and devetopment plan, this school ~splanned ~o be renovated with an addition to house
istudents from Tanglewood Specia~ Center. with aspeciat educa5on componentStephen Decatur Middle School is a I20 970 sq.
~ facty located on a 16 4-acre site in C~inton, MD Theedginal buitding was constructed in 1971 with anaddton in1994 The Septernber2015 enrollmentconsists o1627 students from sixth through eighthgrade As par[ of the special education future programand development plan, this school is planned (o berenovated, to house s~udents from TanglewoodSpecial Center, with a special education component.High Point High School is a 3t8 376 sq B. 1acilitylocated on a 3&8-acre si e n Beltsville MD Theoriginal building was constructed in 1954, with additionadded in ~ 957, ! 964, 1967. and 1977 The September2010 enrollment consists of 22~9 students from ninththrough twelflh grade As pad of the special educationfuture program and development plan, this schooJ isp~anned to be renovated to house students fromJames E Duckworth Special Center, with a specia]education component.
FUNDINGREQUEST
$524,805
$1,000,000
$200,000 I
$200,000
$200000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
PROJECT FUNDINGCatherine T. Reed Elementary (2 REQUESTPods) $1,354,000
Deerfield Run Elementary (5Pods)
Me]wood Elementary (2 Pods)
Kettering Elementary (2 Pods)
DESCRIPTIONCurrently, there are a number of schools in Prince George’s County that have open classroompods This proiect category will provide funding for the conversion of existing open space pods intoconventional classrooms. The open classroom pod environment, a popular teaching concept of thef 9fi0’s and 1970’s, has become an impediment to learning in today s environment. Students inthese pads experience high levels of noise and distraction. Where partitions have been installed tocreate conventional classrooms, an improvement in student achievement and behavior has beenobserved. This project wil} provide for the conversion of Iwo existing pods thfo conventionalc}assrooms. This project will also include minor alterations to the building’s structure or utilityservice that may be required th accommodate the mechanical and electrical equipment that willsupport air-conditioning for the renovated space The nterfor conidors that [ink the open spacepods w aJso be renovated.Each Pod has (4) classrooms, for a total of (8) classrooms to be renovated
Currently, there are a number of schools in Pbnce George’s County that have open classroompods This project category will provide funding for the convers on of existing open space pods intoconventional classrooms The open classroom pod environmen, a popular teaching concept of the1960’s and 1970’s, has become an impediment o earning in obey’s environment. Students fothese pads experience high levels of noise and distraction. Where partitions have been installed tocreate conventional classrooms, an improvement in student achievement and behavior has beenobserved This project wirl provide for the conversion of five e×fsting pods into conventionalc;assrooms This project will also inclode minor alterations to the building’s structure or utflityservice that may be requlred to accommodate the mechanical and efoctrfoal equipment that w~l]support air-conditioning for the renovated space. The intedor cor#dors that link the open spacepods will a}so be renovated.Each Pod has (4) classrooms, for a total of (20) classrooms to be renovated.
Currently, there are a number of schools in Prince George’s County that have open classroompods This project category will provide funding for the conversion of existing open space pods intoconventiona[ classrooms. The open c~assroom pod environment, a popular teaching concept of the196O’s and t 970’s, has become an impediment to learning in today’s environment Students inthese pods experience high levers of noise and distractfon Where partitfons have been installed {ocreate convent!aria c assrooms, an improvement fn student achievement and behavior has beenobserved This project wilJ provfde for the conversion of five existing pods into conventionalclassrooms This project wilt also include minor alterations fo the building’s structure or utilityservice that may be required to accommodate [he mechanical and electrical equipment that willsuppor’ air-conditioning for the renovated space. The interior corridors that link the open spacepods will also be renovatedEach Pod has (4) classrooms, for a total of (20) c~assrooms to be renovated.
Currently. there are a number of schools in Prince George’s County that have open classroompods This project category wil! provide funding for the conversion of existing open space pods intoconventional classrooms, The open classroom pod environment, a popular teaching concept of the1960’s and 1970’s, has became an impediment to learning in today’s environmenL Students inthese pods experience high levels of noise and distraction. Where paditions have been installed tocreate conventiona! classrooms, an improvement in student achievement and behavior has beenobserved. This project will provide for the conversion of five existing pods into conventionalclassrooms. This proiect will also include minor alterations to the beilding’s structure or utilityservice that may be required to accommodate the mechanical and electrical equipment that wiltsupport air-conditioning for the renovated space The intedor corridors that link the open spacepods will also be renovated.Each Pod has 4) classrooms foa oral of 120) classrooms to be renovated.
JUSTIFICATIONThfs project will provide for the conversion of twoexistingpodsintoconventionalclassrooms Thisproject will also thclude minor alterations to thebuilding’s structure or utility service that may berequired to accommodate the mechanical andelectrical equipment which w~J support air-condi~onfogfor the renovated space. The interior corridors thatlink the open space pods wilt also be renovated.
This project will provide for the conversion of t3veexisting pods into conventional classrooms Thisproject will also include minor alteratfons to the
, bui[ding’s structure or utility service that may berequired to accommodate the mechanical andetectrical eq uipment which will su ppod air-conditioningfor the renovated space The interior corridors thatlink the open space pods wJ~l also be renovated
This project wil[ provide for the conversion of twoexisting pods into conventional classrooms. Thisproject will also foclude minor alterations to thebuilding’s structure or utilgy service that may berequired to accommodate the mechanfoal andelectrica; equipment which will support air-conditioningfor the renovated space. The interior corhdors thatlink the open space pods wi~! also be renovated.
This project wilt provide for the conversion of twoexisting pods into conventiona~ classrooms Thisproject will also include miner alterations to thebui]dthg’s structure or utility se~ice that may berequired to accommodate the mechanical andelectrical equipment which will support air-conthtfoningfor the renovated space The intedor comdors thatlink the open space pads will also be renovated.
$1,905.000
$827,000
$1,107,000
FY20!3 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
PROJECTWa~don Woods ElementaryPods)
Bond Mill Elementary (2 Pods)
J Frank Dent Etementary (3Pods)
Crossland High Air Handling UnitReplacement
DESCRIPTIONCurrently, there are a number of schools in Prince George’s County that have open classroornpods. This project category will provide funding for the conversion of existing open space pods intoconventional classrooms. The open ctassroom pod environment, a popular teaching concept of the1960’s and ~970’s, has become an impediment to learning in today’s environment. Students inthese pods experience high leve;s of noise and distraction. Where partitions have been installed tocreate conventional classrooms, an ~mprovement in student achievement and behavior has beenobserved This proiect w[ll provide for the conversion of five exisling pods into convet)tionalclassrooms This pro~ect will also include minor alterations te the bui~ding’s structure or utilityservice that may be required to accommodate the mechanical and electricaI equipment that willsupper1 air-conditioning for the renovated space. The interior corridors tha~ link the open spacepods will also be renovated.Each Pod has (4) c assrooms, for a total of (20) classrooms to be renovated
Currently, there are a number of schools in Prince George’s County that have open classroompods. This project category will provide funding for the conversion of existing open space pods intoconventional classrooms. The opet~ classroom pod environment, a popular teaching concept of the1960’s and "f 970’s, has become an impediment to {earning in today’s envirenment. Students inthese pods experience high levels of noise and distraction. Where partitions have been installed tocreate conventional classrooms, an improvement in student achievement and behavior has beenobserved. This project will provide for the conversion of five exfstthg pods into conventionalclassrooms. 13qis project wilt also include minor alterations to the building’s structure or utilityservice that may be required to accommodate the mechanical and electrical eqaipment that willsupport air-conditioning for the renovated space The interior corridors that [ink the open spacepods wi]~ also be ret~ovatedEach Pod has (4) classrooms, for a total of (20) classrooms to be renovated
;’ Currently. there are a number of schools in Prince George’s County that have open classroompods This Pr°ject category will provide funding for the conversion of existing open space pods intoconvenbona! classrooms. The open classroom pod env onment, a poputar leaching concept of the1900’s and 1970’s. has become an impediment to learning in today’s environment. Students inthese pods experience high levels of noise and distraction. Where pertitlons have been installed tocreate Conventiona c assrooms an improvement in studeRt achievement and behavior has beenobserved. This project will provide for the conversion of five existing pods into conventionalclassrooms This pro~ect will a~so include minor agerations to the butlding’s structure or utilityservice that may be required to accommodate the mechanical and electrical equipment that willsupport air-cendgioning for the renovated space The intedor corridors that link the open spacepods wil! also be renovated.Each Pod has (4) classrooms, tot a total of (20) classrooms to be renovated
The HVAC replacement project will inclode the removal of five (5) 1963 air hand}ing units and (1)1965 air handling unit These units service the main office, the gym, cafeteria, locker rooms, andclassrooms This project will inclode asbestos abatement, removal of old equipment and theinstallation of high efficiency equipment sized in accordance with todays outside air requirement forproper ventilation The o~d pneumatics controls will be replaced with DDC controls for more stableand efficient operation Included in the scope of work will be the painting of the mechanical rooms.
JUSTIFICATIONThis project will provide for the conversion of fourexisting pods into conventional c~assrooms, Thisproject will also include minor alterations to thebuilding’s structure or [dility service that may berequired to accommodate the mechanical andelectrical equipment which will support aiFconditionJngfor the renovated space. The interior corridors thatlink the open space pods will a/so be renovated.
This prelect will provide for the conversion of twoexisting pods into conventional classrooms. Thisproject will also include minor alterations to thebui~ding’s structure or utility service that may berequired to accommodate the mechanical andelectrical equipment which will support air-conddioningfor the renovated space. The inter;or corridors thatlink the opet~ space pods will also be renovated
This project will provide for the conversion of threeexisting pods into conventional classrooms. Thisproject wil! also include minor alterations to thebuilding’s structure or utility service that may berequired to accommodate the mechanical andelectrical equipment which will support air-conditioningfor the renovated space The interior corridors thatlink the open space pods will also be renovated
The AHU’s are deteriorating to a poin~ where repairsare no longer feasible The new unit ventilators will behigh efficient with DDC controls and WJl! be capable ofmeeting current outdoor air ventilation cederequirements.
FUNDINGREQUEST
$1,553,000
$818.000
$1,066,000
$777.000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
Atta
chm
ent - Q
uestio
n 3
4
OA
I 03.2
6.2
1
PROJECTSamuel Chase Elementary RoofReplacement
Arrowhead ElementaryCondensate Piping InfrastructureReplacement
DESCRIPTIONThis project wiJl replace the 5 p~y built-up roof on file t 962 main building and the 1967 addit{on for atota~ of 42,824 sq. rt Al~ roof hatches wfll be repJaced and ladders wfll be installed to provide safeaccess to all roof areas. Funding for fans is not included but all curbs will be raised and replaced
JUSTIFICATIONBase flashings have failed and leaks have beenreported in the field of the roof
The mechanical replacement proiect will include the removal and the replacement of the steamThe piping is deteriorating to a point where ~he heapiping distribution system condensate return piping, steam traps hangers and piping ffisulation,p ant is becoming less efficient due to the number ofThe project w;fl include asbestos abatement and lighting upgrade in the steam tunnels,steam leaks that develop even after repairs have beenmade.
Beltsville Academy CondensatePiping InfrastructureReptacement
Edgar Allen Poe AcademyCondensate Piping InfrastructureReplacement
The mechanical replacement proiect ,~!} include the removal and the replacement of the steampiping distribution system, condensate return piping, steam traps, hangers and piping insulationThe project will include asbestos abatemen! and lighting upgrade in the steam tunnels
The mechanical replacement proiect will include the removal and the replacement of the steampiping distribution system condensa e e urn piping, steam traps, hangers and piping insulationThe project will include asbestos abatement and lighting upgrade in the steam tunnels
Fort Foote ElementaryCondensate Piping Infrastructure ~ piping dis bu ol~ system condensate return piping, steam traps, hangers and piping insulation.Replacement The pro~ect will include asbestos abatement and lighting upgrade in the steam tunnels
The mechanica! replacement project wil! include the removal and the replacement of the steam
The piping is deteriorating to a point where the heatpJant is [~ecoming less efficient due to the number ofsteam leaks that develop even after repairs have beenmade
The piping is deteriorating to a point where the heatplant is becoming less efficient due to the number ofsteam leaks that develop even after repairs have been
The piping is deterioratffig to a point where the heatplant is becoming less efficient due to the number ofsteam leaks that develop even after repairs have beenmade.
FUNDINGREQUEST
$404,000
$233.000
$311.000
$233,000
$272,000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
PROJECTGaywood ElementaryCondensate Piping InfrastructureReplacement
DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATIONThe piping is deteriorating to a point where the heatplant is becoming less efficient due to the number ofsteam leaks that develop even after repairs have been
FUNDINGREQUEST
$233,000
James Harrison ElementaryExterior Storefrent System &Doors Replacement
Rockledge Elementary Ex[eriorStorefiont System & DoorsReplacement
This project will consist of replacing he/low metal storefronts in the rear of the building Doublehallway doors will also be replaced as needed. The metal panels are badly rusted and in need of
replacement, Exterior classroom doors and framesare also badly rusted and in need of repracement
Rose Valley Elementary ExteriorStorefront System & DoorsReplacement
H. Winship Wheat~ey SpecialCenter Exterior Storefront System& Doors Replacement
This project will consist of replacing hollow metal storefronts in the rear of the building. Doublehallway doors wfll also be replaced as needed
This project will consist of replacing hotlow metal storefronts in the rear of the building. Double
The metal panels are badly rusted and in need ofreplacement Extebor classroom doors and framesare also badly rusted and i~ need of replacement
hallway doors wil! also be replaced as needed The metal panels are badly rusted and in need ofreplacement. Exterior classroom doors and framesare also badly rusted and Jn need of replacement
$78,000
$78,000
$78,000
This project will consist of replacing hollow metal storefrents in the rear of the building. Doublehallway doors will also be replaced as needed The metal panels are badly tasted and in need of
replacement Exterior classroom doors and framesare also badly rusted and i£ need of replacement
$78,000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
Atta
chm
ent - Q
uestio
n 3
4
OA
I 03.2
6.2
1
PROJECTBeitsville Academy Window Wal~Tech Fab Panels Restore & Meta~Window Frames R6p~acement
Catherine T. Reed ElementaryUnivents Piping & InsulationReplacement
High Point High Window SystemReplacement
Columbia Park ElementaryCasework & UniventsReplacement
High Point High Univents Piping& Insulation Replacement
DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATIONThe current phase will involve replacement of the remaining tech-fab panels and windows. Phase IThe existing tecb-fab panels and windows areof this proiect was completed with County funding several years ago and will nor be includedseverely deteriorated and no ~onger repairable
This projec~ will consist of replacing the thirty-s × (36) unit ventilators which wilt include the units forParts have become obsolete and keeping themhallways, offices and classroom spaces Ti~e replacement of he air handting unit for the multi
operational is costly and no~ feasible. The new unpurpose room is also included. The new Emit yen a ors will be high efficient with DDC controls andventilators will be high efficient with DDC con rols andwill be capable of meeting current outdoor air ventila on code requirements. Limited asbestoswill be capable of meeting current outdoor airabatement will be needed and will be included in he project Piping will be rep aced back to theventilation code req~lirements.main headers The piping insulation will be comp e e y ep aced on the new and on any existing
pipffig no replaced as part of the pro~ecL
Theprojectwillreplaceinefficientedgffialwinbewsw henergyefficientdoubJeglazedwindows inaddition, glazing panels for window a/c will be included
The project wil~ replace the original univents and associated metal casework which isvintage equipment Smat~ classroom vanities, sinks, faucets and bubbler heads will also beincluded. This project will be coordinated with a separate piping and steam trap replacement
This project wit! consist of replacing the combination heating and air conditioning unit ventilators(60), the pipk~g which serves the units an all piping insulalion. The new unit ventilators wilt be highefficient with DDC controls and will be capable of meeting current outdoor air ventilation coderequirements Limited asbestos abatement will be needed and will be included in the project Pipingand piping insulation wit~ be replaced back to the originating mechanical rooms
Many of the original metal window frames are badlyrusted and leaking
The original univents and associated meta~ caseworkis !950’s vintage equipment that is at the end of itsservice life.
’ Parts have become obsorete and modifications tounits in order to keep them operational are costly andnot feasible The piping and insulation has alsodeteriorated to the point to where it has to bereplaced
FUNDING, REQUEST
$777,000
$389,000
$389,000
$291,000
$389,000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
PROJECTCrossland High Metal Pan Ceilingand Lighting Replacement
DESCRIPTIONThis project will replace metal pan ceiling with new 2 x 4 acoustic lay-in tile grid and lights, JUSTIFICATION
The existing metal pan ceiling at Crossiand HighSchool is ir~ very poor condition after 40 pJus years oservice
Beacon Heights ElementaryBoilers Replacement
Laurel High Fire AlarmRepIacement
This boiler replacement proiect wgl be removing two ~ 964 steam boilers. The project will includeasbestos abatement, removal of boilers, hot water heater and storage tank, buded fuel tank and thepneumatic air compressor for the building controls. Two new energy ef~cffint boilers, new domestichot water system and storage tanks and a new buried fuel oil tank and system will be installed Theinstallation of the limited sprinkler system in the boiler room, a new pneumatic afr compressor, andafter dryer Included in the scope of work will be painting and lighting of the boiler room
This project would replace the entire fire alarm sys em with a new state of the art addressablealarm system
The boilers are deteriorating to a point where repairsare no longer feasible.
The exis~ng tire alarm system at Laurel High School isapproximately 50 years old and a~ the end of itsservice life Additiona!ly. parts are very difficult to findand any failure would be difficult to repair
Bowie High Fire AlarmReplacement
John Hanson Montessod GymWindows Replacement
I This project would replace the entire fire alarm system with a new state of the art addressablealarm system
This project would replace the original 1950’s steel windows in the gym, The new windows willrestore the exterior envelope and provide energy e~ciency.
The existing fire alarm system at 8owie High School isapproximately 50 years old and at the end of itsservice life. AdddionaJly, parts are very difficult to findang any failure WOUld be difficult to repair
The exJstfng windows leak badly in driving rains andthreaten the new wood gym floor.
FUNDINGREQUEST
$311,000
$194,000
$97,000
$87,000
$78,000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
PROJECTCharles Carroll Middle Window
’ System Replacement
DESCRIPTIONThe replacement windows will be much stronger, safer and energy efficient JUSTIFICATION
The existing oversized windows are inherently weak
FUNDINGREQUEST
$583,000
High Point High Fire AtarmReplacement a arm system.
This project would replace the entire fire alarm system w h a new state of the art addressabJeThe existing fire alarm system at High Point HighSchool is approximatety 50 years old and atthe end ofits service life. Additionally, parts are very difficult tofir~d and any failure would be difffcu;t to repair
$87,000
County Funded Only
Secondary School Reform
Bowie High Secondary SchoolReform
Prince George’s County is currently involved in a Secondary School Refo m n tiative. This ffiitiativeis ddven by the goal that all students will be college-and/or caree -ready. To accomplish this, al~high schools wi need o offer courses and programs that have a proven track record to college andcareer success. Specificalty. this means the expansion clAP courses in all high schools, theinclusion of thriving g3 programs balanced across the five geographic clusters, increased dualenrollment courses, increased par[nerships with colleges and universities, and st/ong STEMprograms balanced across five geographic clusters. Each high school will then develop a signatureprogram that will reflect the vision of the school staff, students and community members. Thesignature programs will be career focused with pathways, CTE and programs such as Wodd andClassical La~qguages Bowie High School will focus on Finance and Architectural Design
To implement this dgorous plan, high schools willneed additional classrooms to accommodate classeswith smaller than a 25:1 ratio In addition, facilities willneed to respond to the signature programs developedat each school. STEM themed high schools willrequire addflienffi lab space. As we move deeper inthe 21st century. PGCPS wi;f consider variousconsiderations for classrooms, allowing for conferencerooms and smaller study carrels rather than thetraditional rectangular classrooms. The goal is tocreate a ready workforce by renovating and adding anaddition th the facilities Io reflect the environmentneeded of the workforce. This request would besimilar to the Open Space Pod and ScienceClassroom renova#ens, where spaces and systemswill be reconfigured and renovated
$1,060,000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
PROJECTDuVal High Secondary SchootReform
E~eanor Roosevei~ HighSecondary School Reform
DESCRIPTIONPrince George’s County is currently involved n a Secondary School Reform initiative. This initiativeis driven by the goal that all students will be college and/o career-ready. To accomplish fhis, all
, high schools wifi need to offer courses and programs that have a proven track record ~o college andcareer success Specifically, this means he e×pans on of AP courses in all high schools, ~henclusion of thflving 18 programs balanced across the five geographic clusters, increased dua!enrollment couTses, ~ncreased partnerships with cofieges aod universities, and strong STEMprograms balanced across five geegraphfc clusters Each h gh school wifi hen deve op a signatureprogram tflat wifi reflect the v s on of the school staff, students and community members. Thesignature grograms witl be career focused with pathways, CTE and programs such as Wodd andClassical Languages DuVaJ High School will focus on Law and Public SeP4ces, Engineering and
Prince George’s County is currengy invo red n a Secondary School Re orm nit~atJve. This initiativeis driven by the goal that afi students will be cafiege and or caree -ready. Ta accomplish ,his, alJhigh schools wit! need [o offer courses and programs that have a proven [rack record to college andcareer success. Specflfcally, this means the expansion of AP courses in all high schools theinclusion of thriving IB prograt’ns balanced across the five geographic clusters, increased dualenrafiment courses, increased partnerships with cafieges and universities, and strong STEMprograms balanced across five geographic clusters Each high school will then develop a signatureprogram that wiii reflect the vision af ~he school staff, students and community members. Thesignature programs wi/I be career focused with pathways, CTE and programs such as World andClassical Languages. E~eanor Roosevelt High School wJ~l focus on Hospi~afity & Toudsm.
JUSTIFICATIONTo implement thrs rigorous planr high schoots wfilneed additionaJ classrooms to accommodate c~asseswith smaller than a 25:1 ratio, in addiflen, facfiities wifineed to respond to the signature programs developedat each school STEM themed high schools willrequire additional Jab space As we move deeper inthe 2~st cenfury. PGCPS will consider various
traditional rectangular classrooms The goal is ~o
addition to the facilities to reflect the environmentneeded of the workforce This request would besimilar to the Open Space Pod and Science
To implement this rigorous plan, high schools willneed additional classrooms to accommodate classeswith smaller than a 25:f ratio. In addition, facilities wifineed ~o respond to ~he signature programs developedat each school. STEM themed high schools wrequire additional lab space. As we move deeper inthe 21st century, PGCPS will cot, s!tier variousconsiderations for classrooms, allowing for conferencerooms and smaller study carrels rather than thetraditional rectangular c}assrooms. The goal fs ~ocreate a ready workforce by renovating and adding anaddition to the facilities to reflect the environmen~needed of the workforce This request wou~d besimilar to the Open Space Pod and ScienceCtassroom renovations, where spaces and systemswill be reconflgured and renovated
FUNDINGREQUEST
$3,235,000
$250,000
FY2013 County Capita! Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
PROJECTParkdale High Secondary Schoo~Reform
Bladensburg High SecondarySchool Reform
DESCRIPTIONPrince Georgers County is currenfly involved in a Secondary School Reform iniflative. This initiativeis driven by the goal that all students will be college-andJor career-ready To accomplish this,high schools will need to offer courses and programs that have a proven track record to college andcareer success. Specifically, this means the expansion of AP courses in all high schools theinclusion of thriving IB programs balanced across the five geographic clusters, increased dualenro/Iment courses, increased partnerships wgh colleges and universities, and strong STEMprograms balanced across five geographic clusters Each high school will then develop a signatureprogram that will reflect the vision of the school staffr students and community members Thesignature programs v, dl! be career focused with pathways, CTE and programs such as Wedd andClassical Languages Parkdale High School will focus on Globat Studies and Health &
JUSTIFICATIONTo implement this rigorous plan high schoolsneed additional classrooms to accommodate classeswith smaller than a 25:I ratio In addition, facififles willneed ta respond to the signature programs developedat each school STEM themed high schools willrequire additional lab space. As we move deeperthe 21st centuryr PGCPS wil! consider variousconsiderations for classrooms allowing for conferencerooms and smaller study carrels rather than thetraditional rectangular classrooms. The goal is tocreate a ready workforce by renovating and adding anadddion to the facilifles to reflect the environmentneeded of the workfome This request would besimilar to the Open Space Pod and ScienceClassroom renovaflons, where spaces and systemswil{ be recont~gured and renovated
career success Spec fically, this means the expansion of AP courses in air high schools, theinclusion of thdving IB programs balanced across the five geographic clusters, increased dualenrollment courses, increased pednerships with colleges and universities, and strong STEMprograms balanced across five geographic clusters. Each high school will then develop a signatureprogram that will reflect the vision of the schoo staff, students and community members. Thesignature programs will be career focused with pathways, CTE and programs such as World andClassical Languages £1adensburg High School will focus on Law & Public Service, ArchitecturalDesign, Hospitality & Toudsm and Health & Big Sciences.
Pdnce George’s County is currently involved n a Secondary School Reform initiative. This initiative’ To implement this rigorous plan, high schools willis driven by the goal that at! students will be college and!or career-ready To accomplish this. allI need additional classrooms to accommoda e c asseshigh schools will need to offer courses and programs [ha[ have a proven track record to college andr with smaller than a 25:f raio n addiflon facilities will
need to respond to the signature programs developedat each school. STEM themed high schools wiltrequire additional Jab space As we move deeper inthe 21st century, PGCPS will consider various
traditional rectangular classrooms The goal is tocreate a ready workforce by renovating and adding anaddition to the facilifles to reflect the environmentneeded of the werkforce. This request would besimilar to the Open Space Pod and Science
will be reconflgured and renovated
FUNDINGREQUEST
$200,000
$3,085,000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
PROJECT FUNDINGHigh Point High Secondary REQUESTSchool Reform
S350,000
Laurel High Secondary SchoolReform
DESCRIPTIONP rice George’s County is currently involved in a Secondary SchooJ Reform initiative This initiativeis driven by the goal thai all sturients will be college-and/or career-ready. TO accomplish this, allhigh schools wiJl need to offer courses and programs that have a proven track record to college andcareer success. Specitlcaily, this means the expansion clAP courses in all high schools, theinclusion of thdving IB programs balanced across the five geographic clusters, increased dua!enrollment courses, increased partnerships with colleges and un~,ersities, and strong STEMprograms balanced across five geographic clusters. Each high school will then develop a signatureprogram that wi[! reflect the vision of the school staff, students and commungv members. Thesignature programs will be career focLlsed wi~h pathways, CTE and program~ such as World andClassical Languages. High Point High School will focus on Eng neering Environmental Studiesand Military Science. ’
Prince George’s County is currently involved in a Secondary School Reform initiative This initiativeis driven by the goal that a][ studenls will be college-and/or career-ready To accomplish this, allhigh schools will need to offer courses and programs that have a proven [rack record to college andcareer success Specifically, this means the expansion of AP courses in all riigh schools, theinclusion of thriving IB programs balanced across the five geagraphic clusters increased duaJenrollment courses increased partnerships with colleges and universities, and s[rong STEMprograms balanced across five geographic clusters. Each high schooJ wil! !hen develop a signatureprogram that will reflect the vision of the school staff, students and community members. Thesignature programs will be career focused with pathways, CTE and programs such as World andClassical Languages. Laurel High Schoo! will focus on Global Studies and Transpodaflon.
JUSTIFICATIONTo implement this rigorous plan, high schools willneed additional classrooms ~0 accommodate classeswith smaller than a 25:1 ratio, th addition, facilities willneed to respond to the signature programs developedat each school STEM themed high schools willrequire additional lab space As we move deeper inthe 21 st century, PGCPS will consider variousconsiderations for classrooms, allowing for conferencerooms and smaller study carrels rather than thetraditional rectangular classrooms The goal is tocreate a ready workforce by renovating and adding anaridfflon to the facilities to reflect the environmentneeded of the workforce This request would besimilar te the Open Space Pod and ScienceClassroom renovations, where spaces and systemswitl be reconflgured and renovated
To implement this rigorous plan, high schools willneed additional classrooms to accommodate classeswith smaller than a 25:1 ratio In addition, facilities willneed to respond to the signature programs developeriat each school STEM themed high schools willrequire additional lab space As we move deeper inthe 21st century. PGCPS wil! consider variousconsiderations for classrooms, a~lowing for conferencerooms and smaller study carrels rather than thetradiflona/rectangular classrooms. The goal is tocreate a ready workforce by renovating and adding anaddition to the facilifles to reflect the environmentneeded of the workforce. This request wou d besimilar to the Open Space Pod and ScienceC~assroom renovations, where spaces and systemswi!l be reconfigured and renovated.
$1,310,000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
PROJECT FUNDINGNorthwestern High Secondary REQUESTSchool Reform
$350,000
Central High Secondary Schoo~Reform
DESCRIPTIONPdnce George’s County is currently involved in a Secondary School Reform inJ~ative. This initiativeis driven by the goal that all students will be college-andlor ~areer-ready To accomplish this, al~high schools will need to offer courses and programs that have a proven track record to college andcareer success. Specifically, this means the expansion clAP courses in al~ high schools, theinclusion of thriving IB programs balanced across the five geograph c clusters, increased dualenrollment courses, increased partnerships with colleges and universities, and strong STEMprograms balanced across five geographic clusffers. Each high school will then develop a signatureprogram that will reflect the ~/ision of the school staff, students and community members. Thesignature programs will be career focused with pathways. CTE and programs such as World andClassical Languages. Northwestern High School will focus on Finance and Visual & PerformingArts
Pdnce George’s County is currently involved in a Secondar,/School Reform initiative This initiativeis driven by the goal that all students wilt be college-and/or career-ready To accomplish this, allhigh schools will need to offer courses and programs that have a proven L~ack record to coltege andcareer success Specifically, this means the expansion clAP courses in all h gh schools theinclusion of thriving iS programs balanced across the five geographic clustersr increased duo]enrollment courses, increased partnerships with colleges and universities, and strong STEMprograms balanced across five geographic clusters. Each high school will then develop a signatureprogram that wilt reflect the vision of the school staff, students and community members Thesignature programs wiII be career thc[lsed with pathways, CTE and programs such as World andClassical Languages Central High School wil! focus on Law and Public Services and GlobelStudies
JUSTIFICATIONTo implement this rigorous plan. high scbeois will~eed additional classrooms to accommodate classeswith smaller than a 25:1 ratio. In addition, facilitiesneed to respond to the signature programs developedat each school. STEM themed high scflools willrequire addgiona] lab space As we move deeper inthe 21 st century, PGCPS wit! consider variousconsiderations for classrooms, allowing for conferencerooms and smaller study carrels rather than thetraditional rectangular classrooms. The goal is tocreate a ready workforce by renovating and adding anaddition to [be facilities to reflect the environmentneeded of the workforce. This request would besimilar to the Open Space Pod and ScienceClassroom renovations, where spaces and systemswilt be reconfigured and renovated.
To implement this rigorous plan, high schools willneed additionaJ classrooms to accommodate classes $!,160,000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
PROJECTCharles Flowers High SecondarySchool Reform
Largo High Secondary SchootReform
DESCRIPTIONPrince George’s County is currently involved in a Secondary SchooJ Reform initiative. This initiativeis driven by the goal that all students will be college-and/or career-ready To accomplish this, a{Ihigh schools wilt need to offer courses and programs that have a proven track record to college andcareer success. SpeciScalJy, thfs means the expansion clAP courses in al! high schools, theincJusion of thriving IB programs balanced across the five geographic clusters, increased dualenrollment courses, increased partnerships with colleges and universities, ang strong STEMprograms balanced across five geographic clusters Each h gh schoo will hen develop a signatureprogram that will reflec he v s on of the school staff, students and community members Thesrgnature programs will be career focused with pathways, CTE and programs such as World andClassical Languages. Charles Flowers High School will focus on Engineering and informationTechnology
JUSTIFICATIONTO implement this rigorous plan. high schooIs will
Prince George’s County is currently involved in a Secondary School Reform ingfative This iniflativeIs driven by the goal that all students will be college-and/or ~areer ready To accomplish this, allhigh schools will need to offer courses and programs that have a proven track record to college andcareer success. Specifically, this means the expans on o AP courses in all h gh schoo s, theinckzsien of thrfving 18 programs baJanced across the five geographic clusters, increased dualenrollment courses, increased padnerships with colleges and universities, and strong STEMprograms balanced across five geographic clusters Each high school will then develop a signatureprogram that will reflect the vision of the school staff, students and community members Thesignature programs will be career focused with pathways, CTE and programs such as World andClassical Languages. Largo High School wfll focus on Law & Public Service and Hospitality &TOL~dsm.
with smaller than a 25:1 ratio, J~ addition, facilities willneed to respond to the signature programs developedat each school STEM themed high schools willrequire additional lab space. As we move deeper in
traditional rectangutar ciassrooms. The goal is tocreate a ready workforce by renovating and adding anaddition to the facilities to reflect the environmentneeded of the workforce. This request would besimilar to the Open Space Pod and Science
will be reconflgured and renovated.
To implement this rigorous plan, high schools will, need additiona~ classrooms to accommodate classes
with smaller than a 25:1 ratio In addition, facilities wilrneed to respond to the signature programs developedat each school STEM themed high schooJs willrequire additional lab space. As we move deeper inthe 2fst century, PGCPS will consider vadousconsiderations for classroomsr allowing for conference
, rooms and smaller study carrels rather than thetraditional rectangular classrooms. The goal is tocreate a ready workforce by renovating and adding an
, addition to the facilities to reflect the environmentneeded of the workthrce This request would besimilar to the Open Space Pod and ScienceClassroom renovations, where spaces and systemswit! be reconfigured and renovated.
FUNDING, REQUEST
$250,000
$250,000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
Other County Projects
~ FUNDINGPROJECT DESCRIPTIONi ADA Upgrades Thispr~jectcateg~rywil~requestfundingt~addressADAimpr~vementsata~isch~~~bul~dings. ~o REQUEST
May 2008. the updated Facility Assessment Study of 184 ex s ng school facilities was completed. $1,000,000The current needed repairs fetal $2 128, of which $3I 7M was analyzed as ADA mprovements thatare required. As we proceed to he next phase, each school will be pdorifized based on the FChand would be included in the pdoritized ADA list of projects
Asbestos Ceiling Ti~eReplacement
Buried Fuel Tank Replacement
This project provides funding for the abatement and replacement of all asbestos ceiling tilesthroughout the school system
This project provides funding for replacing buded heating and minor fuel tanks that are leaking orhave deteriorated past the point of repair All buried tanks over 15 years old will need to bereplaced. Replacement tanks will be made of corrosiomresistant materials, and will be installedwith monitohng wells and ether safeguards designed to meet environmental and safe~y standardsFunding wil! be used for tank testing, mandatory upgrades tank replacements site remediafioncaLhodic protection, and temporary procurement.
JUSTIFICATIONThe ADA was signed into law to provide greateraccessibility to physically-challenged Americans byupdating existing buildings and ensuring that a newbui d ngs provide barrier-free access. Failure toaddress tbe deficiencies ~n our schoo} buildingsimposes hardships on users with disabilities andopens the possibility of lifigation. All Prince George’sCounty Public Schools were originally built to comp;ywith the codes and building standards fn effect at thetime of design and construction Annual inspectionsof our facifBies continue to identify life safetycondigens that fail to meet present codes. TO meetthis need, County funds have been requested on anannual basis. A six year capital p]an is proposed toaddress the ADA findings in the updated FacilityAssessment Study.
New ceiling tiles will ;mprove the learning enwronmentof the schools and help prevent any potential incidentsinvolving asbestos exposure New files will also makea large improvement in the schooJs appearance, Manyof the exisling ti~es that contain asbestos are stainedfrom age or roof leaks and cannot be replaced piecemeal
There are currently 263 operational buried fuel tankson properb/owned by the Prince George’s CountyPublic SchooJs. Of these, approximately 130 are 28 ormore years old. A number of the tanks tested to datehave shown evidence of leaks indicafing the need forreplacement. The cost of such replacements isapproximately $100(300 per tank.
$500,000
$500.000
Central Garage/TransportationDept. Improvements
This project seeks to ira rove bus andP vehic e serv ce areas at several locations A f "will b . eas~b~lgy study fihere is a critical need to provide the bus lote conducted to develop a phased program to =reprove working condifions at these facilities
mechanics with workspace that affords protec on frorrenhance worker productivity, and to provide safer we k ng condons Fully eric osed service shedsthe elements. These work stations will e~iminate thewill be provided at several bus lotsneed Io transfer buses from bus lots to one of the
I three garages for repairs
$1,000,000
FY2013 County Capital Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
Z
Atta
chm
ent - Q
uestio
n 3
4
OA
I 03.2
6.2
1
PROJECTMajor Renovation Projects
Maior Repairs
Parking Lots/Driveways
Playground Equipment
Security Upgrades
DESCRIPTIONThis proiect provides funding for the partial or complete renovation of the top-priority schools thatwere identified in the 3Di/International Facilities Assessment Study
JUSTIFICATIONJ The majority of the buildings in the school system
were built between 1960 and ~970, and haveexceeded their useful life
This project provides funding for the repair and replacement of track surfaces, bleachers, lockers,boi]erth HVAC/electdcal systems, elevators, energy pro ects, environmenta} issues, repayingpainting, roof/sffuctural systems, emergency repairs, and expense associated with meetingfederally-mandated regulations.
The average of the school buildings is approximately40 years and the support systems have exceededtheir life expectancy. Consequently, there has been amarked increase n mechanical, electrical andstructural component failures. The cost of eitherplanned replacements or emergency repairs, for suchitems far exceed provisions in the annual maintenanceoperating budget
This project provides funding for addgional entrance/exit drives, vehicle turnarounds, bus awaitingareas, sidewalks, and parent drop-off/pick-up areas at various school sites to accommodate theincreased volume of traffic and improve on-site safety
This proiect provides funding to replace or provide new playground equipment
This project will provide for a six year capital plan to provide a security camera infrastructure planfor the elementary, middle, high, and other school facilities in Prince George’s County.
Most schools were built wher~ a majority of studentswalked to school and driveways were designed tohandle on;y staff and visitor parking with a limitednumber of school buses With the increase in schoolbus traffic, and the number of parents transportingchildren to and from school driveways often cannothandle the trathc volume. This situation has resulted incongestion during arrival and dismissal times.
Many school facilities have playground equ;pment thathas aged and is in need of repair or replacement.
Due to theft and vandalism, break ins. student needsand overal! security, the requested funding will providethe necessary equipment and infrastructure.
FUNDINGREQUEST
$1,500,000
$1,000,000 1
$1,500,000
$500.000
$500,000
FY2013 TOTAL R.=QUES~T $70,083,409
FY2013 County Capita[ Budget
Attachment - Question 34 OAI 03.26.21
Prince George's County Public Schools
Temporary School Buildings
Attachment - Question 37
School Total # of Temps Total Square
Footage
Adelphi ES 4 2,880
Allenwood ES 1 720
Annapolis Road Academy 7 5,040
Ardmore ES 1 720
Arrowhead ES 4 2,880
Beacon Heights ES 6 4,320
Beltsville Academy 9 6,480
Benjamin Tasker MS 5 3,600
Bladensburg ES 1 720
Bowie HS 12 8,640
Bowie High Annex 2 1,440
Brandywine ES 2 1,440
Buck Lodge MS 2 1,440
C.E. Rieg 6 4,320
Calverton ES 9 6,480
Carole Highlands ES 4 2,880
Carrollton ES 8 5,760
Central HS 11 7,920
Cesar Chavez ES 2 1,440
Charles Carroll MS 9 6,480
Charles Flowers HS 22 15,840
Cherokee Lane ES 2 1,440
Clinton Grove ES 7 5,040
Cooper Lane ES 1 720
Deerfield Run ES 3 2,160
Dodge Park ES 4 2,880
Drew Freeman MS 3 2,160
Eleanor Roosevelt HS 21 15,120
Fort Foote ES 4 2,880
Frances Fuchs 12 8,640
Francis T. Evans ES 3 2,160
Frederick Douglass HS 3 2,160
Friendly HS 4 2,880
Gaywood ES 7 5,040
Gladys Spellman ES 2 1,440
Glenarden Woods ES 2 1,440
Glenn Dale ES 3 2,160
Glenridge ES 3 2,160
Gwynn Park HS 6 4,320
H. W. Wheatley 14 10,080
Heather Hills ES 2 1,440
Henry Ferguson ES 4 2,880
High Bridge ES 3 2,160
High Point HS 4 2,880
Hollywood ES 4 2,880
Howard B. Owens Science Center 3 2,160
Hyattsville ES 2 1,440
Page 1
Prince George's County Public Schools
Temporary School Buildings
Attachment - Question 37
School Total # of Temps Total Square
Footage
Hyattsville MS 9 6,480
James Duckworth ES 1 720
James Harrison ES 3 2,160
James Madison MS 6 4,320
James McHenry ES 3 2,160
James R. Randall ES 3 2,160
Jesse B. Mason Regional Center 1 720
John Hanson French Immersion 8 5,760
Kenmoor MS 5 3,600
Lake Arbor ES 2 1,440
Lamont ES 6 4,320
Langley Park-McCormick ES 2 1,440
Laurel HS 9 6,480
Lewisdale ES 4 2,880
Margaret Brent Spec. Center 2 1,440
Martin L. King MS 4 2,880
Montpelier ES 2 1,440
Nicholas Orem MS 4 2,880
Northview ES 3 2,160
Northwestern HS 18 12,960
Oaklands ES 2 1,440
Oxon Hill ES 3 2,160
Oxon Hill HS 4 2,880
Oxon Hill MS 3 2,160
Panorama ES 1 720
Parkdale HS 4 2,880
Port Towns ES 3 2,160
Riverdale ES 4 2,880
Robert Frost ES 2 1,440
Robert Goddard French Immersion 6 4,320
Robert Goddard Montessori 1 720
Rockledge ES 3 2,160
Rogers Heights ES 5 3,600
Rosa Parks ES 3 2,160
Samuel Chase ES 1 720
Scotchtown Hills ES 1 720
Seat Pleasant ES 1 720
Springhill Lake ES 12 8,640
Stephen Decatur MS 2 1,440
Suitland High Annex 6 4,320
Tall Oaks Vocational HS 2 1,440
Templeton ES 3 2,160
Thomas Johnson MS 3 2,160
Thomas Stone ES 11 7,920
University Park ES 3 2,160
Waldon Woods ES 1 720
Whitehall ES 4 2,880
Page 2
Prince George's County Public Schools
Temporary School Buildings
Attachment - Question 37
School Total # of Temps Total Square
Footage
William Beanes ES 1 720
William Schmidt Center 5 3,600
William Wirt MS 5 3,600
Woodridge ES 1 720
Grand Total 450 326,880
Page 3