FY 2012 Superintendent’s Proposed Budget Questions … · Matthew E. Stanski Chief Financial Officer. ... 21 The Strategic Planning and Grants Development unit discusses migrating

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




Qu

esti

on



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




Qu

esti

on



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




Qu

esti

on



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




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




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.




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




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




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




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




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;




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




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.




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.




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




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.




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.




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.

http://www1.pgcps.org/superintendent/




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)




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.




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




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




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%




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:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/03/08/high-teacher-turnover-rates-are-a-big-problem-for-americas-public-schools/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/03/08/high-teacher-turnover-rates-are-a-big-problem-for-americas-public-schools/




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




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




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




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




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




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


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.


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.



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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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%).


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


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)


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


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 *


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 *


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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 *


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.

"


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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) *


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.


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.


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.


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


135

Public School Historical Enrollments 2000-2010


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.


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.


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.


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$


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$


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


FY-09 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





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






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






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






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



Prince George's County Public Schools

Maintenance Department Projects


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



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


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



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



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



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



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



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



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


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



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



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



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



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



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



Temporary School Buildings


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





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





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

FY 2012 Superintendent’s Proposed Budget Questions … · Matthew E. Stanski Chief Financial Officer. ... 21 The Strategic Planning and Grants Development unit discusses migrating

Documents