Superintendent's Preliminary Recommendation

Analysis of Proposed Building or Program Closure, Consolidation or Relocation School Closure Decision-Making Model

In developing the Superintendent's preliminary recommendations, District staff used a three-step process to identify schools and programs.

First, the district was divided into six "planning regions" as follows:

• Northwest: North of the ship canal, west of I-5
• Northeast: North of the ship canal, east of I05
• Queen Anne/Magnolia
• Central: South of the ship canal, north of I-90
• South: South of I-90, east of Duwamish/I-5
• Southwest: West Seattle

The excess or shortfall of capacity was calculated for each region and grade level (elementary, middle, and high) to determine the number of possible building closures or school consolidations.

Second, the schools within each region were compared with each other using a set of objective criteria previously proposed to the school board. These criteria are as follows:

1. Building Capacity: The number of students a building can hold; this is also referred to as its "planning capacity." To calculate each building's capacity, we multiplied the number of teaching stations, or classrooms, by the appropriate standard class sizes:
   
   • Kindergarten - 3rd grade: 23 students
   • 4th - 5th grade: 25 students
   • 6th - 8th grade: 28 students
   • 9th - 12th grade: 30 students

Then we subtracted 25% to account for space needed for some Special Education classes, six periods at high schools, special program resource rooms, community use, etc. All open school buildings were included and categorized according to their original design use (i.e. elementary, middle, or high). Capacity in portables was also included.

Buildings with larger capacities are preferred . Buildings with larger capacities allow for more flexibility in program placement as well as possible future increases in student enrollment.

2. Portable Score: The percent of a building's capacity not in portables. The portable score ranges from 0 (all capacity is in portables) to 1.0 (all capacity is in main building). This is calculated as the current planning capacity not in portables divided by the building's total planning capacity (including portables).

Buildings with more capacity outside of portables are preferred . While portables are often necessary, we prefer to have more students housed within a school's main building.

3. Site Size: The size of a school's property, measured in acres. The site size only includes the portion owned by Seattle Public Schools. According to the Seattle School District Facilities Master Plan (adopted March 17, 1999), the site size goals for school buildings are:
   
   • Elementary: minimum of 4 acres
   • Middle: minimum of 12 acres
   • High: minimum of 17 acres

Buildings with larger site sizes are preferred . Schools with large sites allow for more flexibility to expand the building through remodeling or rebuilding, or to place portables if needed.

4. Building Condition: The physical condition of a school building. Each building's condition is measured by its Study and Survey Building Condition Evaluation Form score, which ranges from 0 to 100. School districts in Washington State are required to submit a comprehensive report regarding school facilities titled "Study and Survey" which is used in determining the state match portion for school construction. The last Study and Survey was completed May 31, 2002 by MENG analysis, Educational Facilities Consultants. The Study and Survey includes an inventory of the District's school facilities and evaluation of their educational and physical conditions and an overview of current capital improvements. Each building is given a score based on "100" being perfect.

Buildings in better condition are preferred . Buildings in better condition are safer, more comfortable, and provide better learning environments for students.

5. Isolation Score: A measure of a building's relationship between its planning capacity, the underlying Seattle Public Schools resident enrollment (2014 projection), and the planning capacity of adjacent buildings. The isolation scores range from 0 (complete overlap with surrounding buildings) to 1.0 (no overlap). The isolation scores are calculated by first creating fictional "attendance areas" around each elementary school that include enough resident students to fill the building, using the projected number of Seattle Public Schools students living in the surrounding block groups and the building's planning capacity. If a school's "attendance area" overlaps with that of one or more other schools in the area, the number of students not contained in the overlapping area(s) is divided by the total planning capacity to create the isolation score. The overlap occurs when the resident population can be served by multiple buildings, which indicates either a small resident population, a high density of buildings, or a combination of both.  

Buildings with higher isolation scores are preferred . Buildings in densely populated areas are needed to provide enough capacity for neighborhood students. In addition, geographically isolated buildings can help provide students with schools closer to their homes and reduce transportation costs.

6. Walk Score: The proportion of students who could walk to a school. Walk scores range from 0 (no students live within the walk zone) to 1.0 (building can be filled with students who live within the walk zone). These are calculated as the number of current Seattle Public Schools students (attending any school) who live within the designated walk zone of a school, divided by the school's building capacity. Walk zones around schools are generally as follows:
   • Elementary schools: 1 mile
   • Middle schools: 2 miles
   • High schools: 2.5 miles

Buildings with potentially more students walking to schools are preferred . A higher percentage of students walking to school may provide the opportunity for lower transportation costs.

7. First Choices: The number of students who listed a school as their first choice on their application. This is an indicator of the popularity of a school.
   
   More popular schools are preferred . High numbers of first choices indicate perceived quality of a school; we hope to minimize disruption to popular programs.

Schools received a score for each criterion, and then the schools within each region were ranked on each criterion in descending order.   No weights were applied to the criteria, but in some cases criteria were eventually weighted differently depending on the unique circumstances within each region.   Then the sum of each school's rankings was totaled and those totals were ranked to produce an overall ranking across all seven criteria for each building within the regions.  

Third, starting with the lowest overall ranking buildings in each region, staff discussed the issues, concerns, or challenges associated with closing or consolidating the identified schools or programs.   Board and community input were considered as well as the four goals of the plan.   While the rankings were used as a starting point for the discussion, in some regions the schools recommended for closure were not originally the lowest ranking schools.